Charles Lipson: America’s House Divided Cannot Stand Voters tend to see their political opponents as enemies, which is dangerous for democracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-house-divided-cannot-stand-11582563522?
For constitutional democracies to thrive—or even muddle through—voters and candidates have to respect their political opponents. Parties must see the competition as legitimate even amid vigorous disagreement on ideas. This shared sense is a load-bearing wall for democracy.
Over the past decade, the U.S. has become much more divided, sawing holes in this wall and hoping to miss the support beams. Progressives and conservatives agree on one thing: It’s the other guys with the chain saws. A 2018 Axios poll summed up the sentiment: Some 61% of Democrats thought of Republicans as racist, bigoted or sexist. About half of Republicans described Democrats as ignorant or spiteful.
Why do so many Americans see their political opponents in such stark terms? One reason is that many on both sides think the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, that a victory for their opponents could ruin the republic. Conservatives fear the growth of the administrative state—powerful bureaucrats who rule by fiat and undermine elected leaders. For progressives, the perceived danger is Donald Trump. The left sees him as an aspiring dictator who is willing to shred constitutional norms.
The two sides might seem diametrically opposed, but they aren’t. Both could be true and form a vicious circle. If “the swamp” and the “deep state” bureaucracy are out to sink President Trump, he can stay afloat only by fighting them ferociously. The harder he fights, the more progressives double down to defend the administrative state, which their policies have built.
This conflict is sharp, deep and toxic for democracy. It is grounded in the country’s profound ideological divide, now embodied in its two parties, and the shared belief that the stakes are very high, perhaps the highest since the Civil War.
Progressives say Mr. Trump started the fight. He is confronting allies, unilaterally imposing tariffs, and rolling back regulations. He is attacking opponents on Twitter. Progressives—and some Republicans who dislike Mr. Trump—are especially troubled by his attacks on “fake news,” which they consider a dangerous assault on the First Amendment. The left is appalled when Mr. Trump criticizes federal judges, whose independence is central to the rule of law. The left also fears Mr. Trump’s entirely legitimate effort to reshape the courts.
Both sides believe in their mission—and their righteousness. The civil servants and lawmakers who oppose President Trump believe they are saving democracy. They consider it a civic obligation to speak out, leak highly privileged documents, launch endless investigations, and unleash the powerful tools of national intelligence on domestic political opponents. They are guided by what former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey calls “a higher loyalty” that pre-empts laws and procedures designed to prevent such abuses. In their minds, the ends justify the means.
Something similar happens on college campuses, where political activists and social-justice warriors shout down speakers they oppose. They are convinced their goals are noble. That self-assurance dwarfs any concerns about free speech or free assembly.
Mr. Trump and his supporters believe they are being persecuted by these opponents. They see their views being “canceled” in college classrooms and in the media. Mr. Trump’s supporters see elites treating them with open contempt. And they’re angry about it.
They are certain the Obama administration used the FBI and intelligence agencies to spy on Mr. Trump’s campaign and early presidency—and broke the law to do it. They know Mr. Comey leaked confidential memos to get Robert Mueller appointed special counsel. Mr. Mueller continued Mr. Comey’s unprecedented investigation of the president and his aides. Mr. Mueller assembled a partisan team and continued his probe for two painful years even though there was no Russian “collusion.”
When that story finally imploded, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff began their quest for impeachment. Democrats denied the president the most basic features of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence: the right to call your own witnesses and cross-examine the other side’s. When the Senate voted to acquit, Mrs. Pelosi tried to deny reality. “There was no acquittal,” she told CNN. “You can’t have an acquittal unless you have a trial, and you can’t have a trial until you have witnesses and documents.”
It is hard to imagine a more damaging assault on settled constitutional procedures. Yet Mrs. Pelosi is merely reiterating Democrats’ central theme since 2016: Donald Trump is not a legitimate president.
Neither Mr. Trump nor his opponents have any intention of backing down. Each side believes it is fighting to defend the republic against truly malign opponents. And there is no easy escape from this confrontation. Unlike the deep cleavage in the late 1960s, it won’t end when the troops come home. Unlike the divisions in the 1930s, it won’t end when one candidate wins overwhelming popular support. The country is too divided for that.
The division won’t end after the November elections, and the question is how to repair the damage. Democrats will need to acknowledge winners in elections, not resort to calling them frauds. And both parties need to show the tolerance and respect for different views that define a healthy liberal society.
Mr. Lipson is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security.
Comments are closed.
