The American Political System

The American Political System

Those who know me know that I don't usually like to talk about politics. I find myself fitting neither with the general stance of the Republican party, nor with that of the Democratic party. I feel that, in my experience, the moment a hot topic in contemporary politics gets brought up, both sides retreat to their talking points, which is an incredibly defensive position. There are people with whom I am friends on Facebook who are otherwise calm and considerate people who try to understand issues from every point of view who I am hesitant (not to say frightened) to engage in dialogue on political issues as I have found that they tend to gravitate, just like most people, into extreme positions.

One day, I found myself wandering on a YouTube trail (where one video leads to another, without any overarching goal in mind), which I usually try to avoid and I ended up watching part of a video of a presentation by Christopher Hitchens. The presentation in question took place during the Clinton administration and Hitchens (who is British) was functioning as a journalist and cultural commentator and not primarily as a militant atheist (which he also does from time to time). How I ended up on this particular clip, I cannot explain, especially as it was only one part out of ten or so, and the only one I watched was somewhere in the middle. I do not know exactly what issue was going on at the time that prompted the observation, but Hitchens made an incredibly insightful comment. He said (words to the effect of), "In America, I have noticed that the word 'partisan' has a distinctly negative connotation, whereas 'bi-partisan' has a distinctly positive connotation." He ultimately concluded by saying, "I think that America is afraid that it might one day become a two-party system."

Now, this comment got some laughs from the (American) audience, because, as everyone in America knows, we do have a two-party system. We have some other parties that show up every once in a while, but they tend to not do very well. Even though we may have more than two parties on paper, in practice, there are two parties in America.

But Hitchens' comment cuts deeper than that. In spite of the fact that, in America, we have two parties that hold opposite views on a multitude of issues, the idea that we ought to strive for truly bi-partisan politics as the ideal, whereas partisan politics is a problem is very much the product of the Enlightenment. Hitchens, who is from England where there are many viable political parties, sees the truth perhaps a bit more clearly than we Americans do.

I think that we in American desperately want to believe that there is one position that is objectively and completely "right," and that, if we all just got together and shared all our opinions and brought forward all the arguments and checked all the facts, we would all come to the same conclusion, we would all agree on what is right, what is wrong, and how we should proceed so that we can be right and not wrong. The contemporary issues surrounding taxation of the wealthy and organized labor, among other things, seems to operate with the presupposition that, if all the facts could be on the table, nobody would be confused as to what we should do. We would all agree. There is clearly a "right" way to go about these things and a "wrong" way to do so. What we need is to get beyond all our political platforms and discern this together.

But there is a problem with this. The fact of the matter is that, while a good portion of Americans can get along most of the time and make compromises on most things, there are certain communities that simply cannot get along. To give some fairly extreme examples, radical Fundamentalists simply cannot get along with the homosexual community (and vice versa) without in some significant manner changing who they are and what they believe. Another example is the KKK and the African-American community. These are two communities that, because of who they are and what they believe, simply cannot exist side by side, short of bloodshed, without some kind of external restraint.

But what happens in the application of external restraint, which must be applied, if for no other reason, than to keep the peace? One group is given privilege over the other, at whose expense this privilege is purchased. Now, the question is, which side do you choose? In the examples I have provided (which are extreme to make the point clearer, though this happens on smaller scales as well), most contemporary people would say that we ought to side with the homosexual community and the African-American community, respectively, if for no other reason than because those groups have tended to be less driven to violence toward their opponents, but, though this is firmly in line with our constitution as classically interpreted (you have rights until your exercise of them infringes on the rights of others) it is still the prioritizing of one community's desires over another.

By the way, we can see, especially in the case of the KKK, where the de-facto decision was in favor of the more violent group and was only later overturned. There is nothing in our law or society that guarantees that we will always operate in the same way.

The reason why I bring up these issues is that there are certain communities that no amount of conferencing and "compromising" will yield a solution that is fully acceptable to both parties (think, for example, about whether it would be possible to find a solution that is fully acceptable to both the KKK and the African-American community). Decision between such communities always has to be made, and made by a third party, who does not necessarily agree completely with either party.

I think that this is the case more often than we would like to admit. If I am particularly wealthy, I am likely (though not guaranteed) to oppose high taxes on the wealthy. Yes it is true that such taxation might be aimed at the greater good, but my willing participation is based on a few presuppositions. First, I would have to believe that the taxes actually do aim at the greater good. It is entirely possible that I might conclude that what we call "the greater good" might actually simply be "what is good for this community in which I do not find myself," only with an absolutized name and a noble sound. Secondly, I would have to believe that this is actually the best way to reach this greater good. Third, I would have to believe that the elected officials would know better how to spend my money than I do for the greater good they are seeking. Fourth, I have to actually believe in this greater good exists and agree that it is something worth striving for. None of these is guaranteed, and the absence of any one of them (let alone more than one) could result in the opposition of such taxation in the defense of self-interest (which, by the way, is what Adam Smith says is the driving force behind capitalism. It seems to be built into our economic system, that we dogmatically export all over the world).

In a similar way, one could easily make the argument that organized labor is not for the greater good, but for the good of those engaged in labor. On some levels, it is not good, or at least is perceived not to be good, to certain businesspeople. If this were not so, there would be no argument about it. A victory for upper management is paid for by labor, but it is equally true that a victory for labor is paid for by upper management. Perhaps we can dress it up in noble garments, that it is the right thing to do, that really, it is the best for everyone involved, or at least the best for enough of a majority (or supermajority) to make it worthwhile. It might also be claimed that upper management can afford to pay for this victory, whereas the opposite cannot be said. All these things might be true, and might be judged as true by those who get to make such decisions, but it does not change the fact that no statement of "better" or "worse" political decisions is made in a vacuum, but reflects the interests of a certain community.

The point that Christopher Hitchens saw so clearly is that we in America want desperately to believe that, if we just work together, we will come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone involved, that, even if we have to settle for something less than our personal ideal, it is acceptable because our desire for the best for the totality of our society is our primary concern. It is a kind of political pluralism. We sincerely hope that both political parties are equally dedicated to independent "ideal" political decisions, but are simply talking past one another, or are momentarily distracted, but can and should be set right. Hitchens was able to see what we often cannot: We are different people with different interests, some of which are mutually exclusive. A victory for one community carries with it the defeat of another community. No political gain is made without a corresponding political loss somewhere else. Nobody gains power unless someone else loses power.

I think that, until we can throw off the mask and see how our own interests color the whole political process, we will never be able to see other people as real human beings, albeit human beings with different, sometimes mutually exclusive, interests and desires, but human beings who are just as self-consistent and just as passionate about their convictions as we are. And I believe it is only when we can do this that we can really move forward in civility and love.