The Peril of Politicizing Everything

Throughout the history of this nation, so long as there have been politics and political parties, there have been significant, even violent disagreements on a great variety of subjects, whether related to the government or simply the national culture and philosophy. It seems inevitable that that will always be the case, and it is for the better. It provides vigorous debate on the merits of ideas and practices and informs (and at times misinforms) the public on the issues.

But in the past, not terribly distant, there were many general principles on which there was near universal agreement, and many other subjects on which disagreements were based more in the personal views of individual representatives and leaders, not the position (official or understood) of a particular party or philosophy. There was often as much argument within the parties as between them, especially on topics to which there was no particular ideology attached.

Today, however, it seems that on nearly every issue of any significance, the differing camps have staked out what is held to be the “orthodox” position for liberals, for conservatives, for Democrats, for Republicans. Likewise, there are also groups that each ideology must support or oppose, depending on what is the prevailing preference within the group with which one associates or identifies. Failure to follow the party or ideological line generally results in one incurring the wrath of the most vocal wing of the party or philosophy, and with that comes lack of support or outright opposition in elections. The leaders and representatives are held to the fire and required to toe the line.

The problem with this is that it replaces reasoned analysis with knee-jerk reaction. It replaces consideration of the issues with consideration of which group is aligned with which side. It replaces in-depth review of policies and their impact on society with input from power brokers, contributors and votemongers. It also reduces or eliminates the possibility of compromise, resulting in extremism. 

Some recent examples are: 

George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. That case, boiled down to its facts, involved a question of an altercation between two young men, one of whom was armed and shot the other. Valid questions existed as to whether the shooting was self-defense, whether the shooter or the deceased provoked the altercation, who was beating on whom, and whether the use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. All were completely proper questions. But instead it became a political cause. To the far left, Zimmerman was a white racist who gunned Trayvon down in cold blood for being black. (Ignoring the minor details that Zimmerman was not white and, based on his whole history, showed no hint of being a racist.) To the far right, Trayvon was a dangerous thug and Zimmerman a hero for taking him out. (Despite Trayvon’s having, prior to whatever happened with Zimmerman, having done nothing more sinister that evening than going for a snack, and his having no significant history outside of youthful indiscretions.) The case became about everything but its facts. 

Perverted Officeholders. Anthony "Showyour" Weiner and Bob "Filthy" Filner are both prominent Democrats, and so have been paraded by Republicans as typical of what Democrats are like. Meanwhile, Mark Sanford, who hiked the Appalachian trail to Argentina, and Larry Craig, who looked for love in all the wrong restrooms, were both prominent Republicans, and so were trotted out as G-O-Perverts by Democrats. Each side has their dirty guys, but then each team points to the other's bad apples as though "your scoundrels cancel out our scoundrels and we are even." The problem with that, of course, is that such men are unfit for public office no matter which party they belong to. 

Public Pensions. What is fair compensation for public employees? What is a reasonable provision for their retirement after years of service in their jobs? How do their jobs and their remuneration compare with similarly situated workers in the private sector? How do we ensure that we recruit and retain good employees in public service? How much can the various governmental entities afford? Those are all valid, important questions with one thing in common: they can and should be apolitical and have calculable, objective answers based on discernible criteria. Instead, however, the questions are fraught with political implications. Public employee unions will always press for more and better pay and benefits for the employees they represent. Since that is their organizational function, it is hard to fault them for that. Democratic politicians are committed to the unions, as the unions are immense financial contributors to them and their party. Therefore, the Democrats can almost always be counted on to take the side of the unions, public employee and otherwise, without regard to whether their positions have merit. On the opposite side, Republican politicians generally see the unions as an enemy, not because they have anything against the members, but because of the overwhelming organizational bias of the unions in favor of the Democrats. Of course, the process feeds on itself. The unions could have as easily been huge GOP supporters, and the GOP could have responded in kind, but the underlying philosophies did line up better the other way. And that is how it went, so Republicans are generally opposed to the union position on issues, because that is the Democratic position, whether or not the union's position is valid. So it is that important questions such as those outlined above are sidelined, and decisions are made based on who is pushing for what. That can lead to results that border on the absurd, such as in California, where the entire government is solely in the control of one party, and the very people who have to push back on union demands are, of necessity, their allies, and even they cannot give in to every demand. 

Guns. Even in the old west, the cowpunchers were often required to leave their guns when they went into the saloon. In those days, guns were just tools, and men carried them as regularly as men carried pocket knives 30 years ago, but there was still an understanding that guns and getting drunk were a bad mixture. While the political lines are more blurred in this area due to geography, there is unquestionably a strong Democrat = anti-gun and Republican = pro-gun division and perception. Democrats from more liberal urban areas lean toward outright bans and what appears to be a complete lack of comprehension about hunting, target shooting and even the function of many weapons. They happily support measures that would impact almost entirely law-abiding citizens and do nothing to retard crime. Republicans from areas with many hunters, sport-shooters and a greater mistrust of government, resist almost any restrictions, even ones that would scarcely impact anyone but a criminal, to avoid being grouped with Second-amendment-trampling jack-booted thugs in Washington. Each side needs to lean hard left or hard right or risk defeat at the campaign fundraising level, and therefore at the polls. Yet, in a strange dichotomy, inner-city residents of heavily Democratic strongholds are more likely to mistrust the police and the justice system than the people in conservative areas who are more likely to mistrust the government. The alignments of politics prevent discussions of which restrictions make sense and which restrictions infringe on rights without any benefit, just to restrict. 

Abortion. Should abortion never be allowed? Not 10 minutes into the pregnancy of a 12-year-old raped by 20 maniacs? Some few people feel that way, but most do not. Should abortion always be allowed, even if the baby is about to be born, and the mother just decided to have an abortion because someone took the name she had picked? Some few people feel that way, but most do not. Most people are somewhere in between the extremes on this issue (as, indeed, they are somewhere in between the extremes on most issues.) But politics would make it appear that the nation is divided between the no-abortion-ever view and the all-abortions-OK view. Many people are surprised to learn that in California, there is no restriction whatsoever except on a medical opinion that no doctor would give. The law here is, basically, no law. It rarely gets that far, but that is due to human nature, not the law. A Democratic candidate (outside of local elections in the southern and mountain states) dares not even hint that he would support any restriction on abortions, despite the fact that most Americans would support at least some restrictions. A Republican candidate, except local candidates in more liberal areas, must come across as being 100% against allowing any abortions, or can forget national ambitions, despite the fact that most Americans would allow at least some abortions. It has become a litmus test that requires one to be strong acid or strong alkali, while the Ph of the nation is nowhere near so extreme. 

Social Security. Whether the Social Security system is going to be able to meet its obligations is not a political question. It is a mathematical and actuarial question. If there is a problem, ignoring it or kicking it down the road will only lead to a financial Dunkirk that would prove disastrous. If there is not a problem, then the math ought to be able to show that and the issue should go away. Platitudes and accusations and posturing are good politics, as is playing on fears. If my house is on fire, I have no reason to resent the neighbor who points it out, nor the firemen who want to put out the fire, even though they may wet my carpets or trample my rosebushes in the process. The fire has to be put out. I do not want someone setting my house on fire, nor falsely reporting it to be aflame, but he who tells me is not my enemy for having done so. I would be a fool to want to remain in the house while it burned, ignoring the flames, because I did not want to believe it is burning. Social Security is a train headed for the cliff -- unless it is not. It is perfectly fine and will be solvent and will have no problems meeting its obligations -- unless one believes the analysis of most accountants, even including the people who run it and send out those annual reports that say otherwise. Political posturing may postpone the question until it becomes an emergency (or doesn’t) long after the present crop of politicians has retired with handsome pensions. The inability of our elected leaders today to craft anything like a solution (to the problem that exists or does not) is based on incessant bickering along party lines, with each side afraid to step on the roses or wet the carpets of the huge bloc of seniors who vote. 

Until we arrive to a place where decisions are based on prudent consideration of options resulting in solutions that accomplish what is needed while considering the limits of feasibility, waste and gridlock will be our common lot. I would love to the see a day when people of good will, having different views, can discuss the merits of their opinions, and perhaps see some of the merits of the differing opinions of others, engaging in a real dialogue about what is good for the city, state and nation, without being focused more on the campaign chest, the next race, the party line and the shot-callers than on what is right and sensible. Call me a dreamer, but it might be possible if our leaders ever stop calling each other everything else in the book.