Why Have Politics Become so Hateful? Sydney Williams
In a September 2021 Public Agenda/USA Today/Ipsos poll, 72% of Americans thought it would be “good for the country” if there were less political hostility and a greater focus on common ground. Yet only 9% of respondents thought hostilities would decrease in the next decade, while 42% expected them to increase. Why have political differences made us so bitter? Why do we hate those with different opinions so intensely? What does this anger mean for the future of our nation?
Political hatred has had a long gestation. It is easy to blame the crude and narcissistic Donald Trump. But this bitterness preceded him. He made things worse, but he was not its genesis. He reflected the animosity felt by rural and mid-Americans toward coastal elites. He widened and deepened the divide, but he was not its cause. Barack Obama, as the first African American elected President, was one who could have bridged racial dissensions. Instead, he made things worse. It is true that Mr. Obama was despised by a few right-wing racists, but most criticisms of his policies were assumed by his supporters to be race-based. President Joe Biden ran on a platform of unity, yet he has fanned the flames of partisanship; an example – when in Georgia he referred to Republicans as similar to Jefferson Davis, George Wallace and Bull Connor, ironically all Democrats. Political hatefulness has deepened because of social media and cable TV.
I do not presume to know all reasons why we have become so angry. But I suspect three culprits play a role: wokeism, identity politics, and a breakdown of traditional ethical norms. Wokeism is a creed that uses Jacobin tactics to foster economic chaos and property destruction, as it obsesses about climate, race, class and gender. Climate evangelists call opponents deniers – those who suggest adaption and see natural forces as an important cause of climate change. Then we have transgender women allowed to compete in women’s college sports. Wokeism in the classroom and the boardroom has replaced meritocracy with equity, in the belief it will produce equality of outcomes. In their unbridled zeal, these acolytes of wokeism, with their self-righteousness and absence of common sense, remind one of Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby.
As for identity politics, for years politicians compartmentalized the electorate into addressable groups. Old people care about health and security. Young parents care about schools. Farmers care about vicissitudes of the weather. Coal miners care about loss of jobs, while environmentalists worry about climate change. Immigrants (legal ones) care about citizenship, while Americans who live along borders care about illegal crossings. The wealthy care about tax rates, while the needy care about assistance. Now, promotion of gender and racial politics have aggravated differences. Affirmative action was used to address years of discrimination, and which, while necessary fifty years ago, has had the consequence of again, segregating people by race. Once divided, these groups became difficult to stitch back together.
Perhaps it is unsurprising that in a multicultural country, traditional ethical behavior is seen as “too white,” too reflective of western values. Yet it has been those values, along with rule of law, protection of private property and guarantees of free expression, that attracted immigrants to this country. But is the U.S. still that country? Civics and civil behavior are no longer taught. Church attendance has been in decline. since the early 1960s. Family formations have been in decline for forty years. The average age of Americans in 1960 was 29.5. In 2000, it was 35.3 and today it is 38.3. To help fill diminishing state treasury coffers, states like “blue” Connecticut promote gaming, the lottery, and on-line and sports betting, while dismissing the attendant increase in gambling addiction and the regressive nature of such funding. People become disillusioned when sold false promises of riches. An aging and shrinking population hampers economic growth, which leads to impatience that gives birth to stress.
Barring a war or national emergency, unity is difficult in any country. But it is especially so in a multi-racial nation of assorted ethnicities. The government’s handling of COVID created dissension. One would have thought that a Chinese-originated infectious disease – whether from a wet market or a lab – would have unified the U.S. (and the world) against China. Instead, the disease was politicized. Inter-governmental agencies with financial ties to China have impeded investigations as to the pandemic’s origins. “Follow the science” became the mantra, even as the science was changing. Special powers were granted governors. “You are with us or against us” are the words of a tyrant. There was no middle way, no room for debate.
One thing that could help restore a sense of unity would be a political leader with the self-deprecating humor of a Lincoln, Coolidge or Reagan. Lincoln, when accused of being two-faced: “If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?” Coolidge, when asked what it felt like to be President: “Well, you got to be mighty careful.” Reagan, when in debate with Mondale and the subject of age arose: “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” None of these quips were nasty or injurious. Non-aggressive humor, unlike today’s political cartoons and late-night TV, has a bonding effect. Such humor is missing in today’s partisan swamp.
Differences are important in a democracy and debate is critical to understanding. But so is civility. We will never (nor should we) agree on everything. Compromise is not a four-letter word. There is unnecessary nastiness in Democrats claiming that a Republican win in the midterms will put democracy at risk, as Nancy Pelosi declared in her re-election announcement. Keep in mind, it was the Democratic Party that issued mandates, canceled speakers, censored speech, enforced segregation – now against Asians and whites – and jailed without habeas corpus many of those who invaded the Capitol last January 6. This is not a call for blind patriotic devotion, but neither is it to agree with Samuel Johnson declaration: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” It is to acknowledge that just as evil exists, so does goodness, in people and in nations. It is to argue that the United States, despite obvious historical and current warts, has been a force for good in this world, more so than any other nation – deserving of pride. And it has been so because it has always put first the freedom of the individual, while combining, as the late conservative political philosopher Roger Scruton noted, a suspicion of government with the acknowledgement of its necessity.
Without a reduction in political animosity, how will the U.S. address the real problems we confront: China’s and Russia’s aggression; nuclear weapons in rogue states; the failure of our K-12 public schools? Balancing the budget. Problems at home and in the world are real. Hatefulness will not solve them.
Comments are closed.
