Is America a “house divided against itself?”

This question is assumed by many political observers in this country and is voiced by many world leaders abroad. Within the beltway, it seems common wisdom to accuse the opposing side of intransigence. Recently in a Charlie Rose interview, the Senate Majority Leader blamed the President for not supporting what he terms as the biggest problems facing America, namely, tax, entitlement, and regulatory reforms. He would like to simplify the tax code by eliminating deductions and lowering the tax rate at the top, while maintaining a neutral fiscal balance. The President agrees with the tactics, but not the overall strategy: he wants to raise money for both debt reduction and infra structure “investment” which, in Republican eyes, is merely a pseudonym for “expenditures”. The Senate Majority Leader would like to “save” entitlements by extending age eligibility for Medicare and Social Security, following the path taken by President Reagan. The President recognizes that people live longer, but does not agree that they should work longer or retire later. Instead, he appears to favor an increase in the income cutoff for Medicare taxes and to maintain the status quo with Social Security which is projected to remain solvent for the next several decades. The Senate Majority Leader strongly feels that regulations are stifling small businesses in America. He specifically calls out the Environmental Protection Agency and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, while castigating all regulatory agencies in general. The President believes that government must regulate the economy to provide for the safety, protection, and economic interests of the general public. He has pointed out that the EPA and Dodd-Frank have mainly impacted multi-national energy companies and America’s largest banks, respectively, rather than small businesses. Maybe there is some room for compromise on these differing positions regarding tax and entitlement reform. For example, Congress could give the President some “investment” income and stipulate a measure of debt reduction from tax reform while lowering the corporate tax rate and eliminating tax “loopholes.” And it could take a balanced approach to Medicare, possibly raising the income cutoff for the Medicare tax in exchange for raising the age limit for eligibility, perhaps to match Social Security. But the ideological arguments on regulatory reform seem to offer no quarter for compromise. Besides the public interest interwoven into many regulations, many were created for and written by business. Culling out the bad regulations would be like pulling weeds from an overgrown and long unattended garden. Many parasites who feed there would object.

Our two political parties appear to be locked into positions defined by ideologies that may be generalized. The Republican Party emphasizes personal freedom, largely unhindered by government. The Democratic Party champions equality, largely guaranteed by government. Remember “one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberty and equality under the law are both interwoven into the very fabric of our nation. The Parties should be like a happily married couple who work as one team, each party completing the other. Whose interests are they really representing? Why do they act like embittered divorcees?

I can think of several reasons. David Brooks points out that besides freedom and equality there is a third refrain at the heart of the American experience, specifically, economic mobility. The latter was a theme of the Whig Party, to which most of our founding fathers belonged. It was most eloquently espoused by Alexander Hamilton, generally recognized as the primary author of our economic system. Oddly, it has been incessantly repeated by our current President when he speaks of opportunity—“any person who works hard should have a fair shot.” Perhaps our government would interfere less in personal freedom and at the same time provide more equality by focusing on the opportunities available to Americans and to their ambitions in life. Most conservatives, I suspect, would agree in principle. If so, why can our government not insure a quality education for every citizen, provide funds for infra structure investments, institute only those regulations and patent laws that encourage entrepreneurship, and provide healthcare at a reasonable costs to all its citizens. Most liberals, I suspect, would not only agree but strongly affirm “yes, we can.” If our government truly focused upon providing every citizen the opportunity for his/her personal realization of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the currently divisive approach to regulatory, tax, and entitlement reform would dissolve into a single goal. Compromise would necessarily be the result. Each side would lose something in order to benefit society as a whole. We could then lift the burden of a government without representation from our collective shoulders. That burden weighs heavily on us today and cannot be born for long if we are to remain a free society. Emphasizing one American ideal over another can lead either to worthwhile debate or to gridlock. The latter serves neither the synergy of those ideals nor the American people who strive to live them. Instead, our political Parties should focus on what government can do to promote equal opportunity for individual Americans. “It’s the economy stupid” is not the right catch phrase if it is measured by a rising stock market and increased corporate profits. The economy is a byproduct of equal opportunity—as are personal freedom and equality.

Another reason for the intransigence in Washington is something we too easily take for granted. It was part of that loudly proclaimed refrain in the French revolution, namely, liberté, egalité, fraternité. That last element, “brotherhood,” addresses our feelings for each other and the realization of our common humanity. It is implied in our dedication to “form a more perfect Union.” But it cannot be realized until all barriers to our union are torn down, including all forms of bigotry, gender bias, racial or ethnic discrimination, and the systemic impoverishment of the less fortunate. Only compassion for each other can break down those barriers. It is not the same as “nationalism” which establishes the state’s interest over the individual’s. Nor is it encompassed by “popularism” which tends to represent tribal or class interests over that of the individual. Compassion is that quality that can unite all of us on a person-to-person basis and is the integral binding force of communities. Of course, the larger the community, the more difficult it is to represent the value of personal relationships. However, the leaders we elect and the laws our legislators pass must reflect the empathy we share as individuals for each other. Otherwise, these leaders and legislators can be seen as personally unauthentic, as “not one of us.” And their governing principles will not reflect the welfare of individual Americans, but some self-interest, such as staying in office, rewarding their supporters, or serving those adolescent goals that can entice any of us to money, power, fame and/or status. America can still promote individual self-sufficiency without betraying its communal devotion to all of its citizens, its sense of “brotherhood,” and its unrelenting quest to “form a more perfect Union.”

So, again, why is there so much vitriol in our politics and antagonism between the Parties? Is there simply an absence of unifying principles and goals? Are our elected officials more devoted to narcissistic hubris or just lacking in any real empathy with those they are elected to represent? In some measure, it would seem both questions can be answered in the affirmative. But there is another reason for the ineffectiveness of our politics: there is a complete and total breakdown in communication. The problem begins with the distinction between discussion and dialogue. “Discussion,” like the word “percussion,” implies the pounding of the air with sound waves. A person delivering a lecture behind a podium or a speech before a camera has little if any feedback from an audience. There is no dialogue: communication is one way only. Likewise, a debate in which opponents attempt to disprove each other’s argument in favor of their own can easily devolve into straight-on attacks, as seen in recent political debates. Again there is no real attempt at understanding the opponent’s position and no real dialogue. Have you ever watched a Senator or Congressman address his/her colleagues on C-Span? When the camera pulls back from the speaker, you will most likely see an empty chamber. The speaker is talking for the record, perhaps for his constituency, but definitely not for his/her fellow legislators. Has anyone of us ever resolved a disagreement with a spouse without first attempting to understand our spouse’s position? Compromise requires dialogue. Without the ability to listen and understand someone with whom we disagree there is no space for identifying common ground or correcting our own misconceptions.

Referring again to Charlie Rose’s interview, the Senate Majority Leader explained the President’s intransigence in this manner: “instead of talking about things upon which we might agree, he wasted my time trying to convince me of things with which he should know I could never agree” (my paraphrase). The door into his mind was shut before the President even began to state his argument. Why even bother having a meeting if at the outset you refuse to listen or even try to understand a different opinion? From the Senator’s perspective it was arrogant of the President to believe he could change the Senator’s opinion. Is it no wonder that the Republican majority cannot suffer this President and are offended by him? Both sides appear to be talking past each other. In the case of the Senate Majority Leader, he clearly demonstrates the problem in his refusal to even listen to the President’s position. There is no dialogue here and, therefore, no possibility for compromise on the real issues that separate the Parties. Instead, there is just a growing disrespect for those in the opposition Party. At best our Congress can make spineless agreements to extend funding on programs that require revision. But it declines any real dialogue on those major issues that both Parties will turn into campaign attack fodder.
Unfortunately, this breakdown in communication extends into the public forum. Yesterday, I was fortunate to hear three complete speeches; two were by major Party candidates for President, and the third by Elizabeth Warren. All but one of these speeches clarified Party positions; and all three were noteworthy for the hateful vitriol they poured upon the opposing Party nominee. Today, I witnessed how cable news reported these three speeches. They clipped out any context and broadcast only the vitriol. The one speech that was largely incoherent and clarified nothing was given equal treatment and, therefore, equal weight. What we have come to accept as fair and impartial reporting is no longer fair or objective for it leaves out the truth. What we are forced to witness is politicians engaged in self-gratifying harangues and a media obsession with the spectacle. What is missing is substance.

Maybe, the American system is not yet broken, but cracks are noticeably developing, as evident in both major political Parties’ complaints. Neither side seems willing to address the issues considered most important to the other side. Should our government address income inequality or tax reform? Should it address a deteriorating safety net or entitlement reform? Should it address climate change or regulatory reform? Each of these questions juxtaposes the opposing priorities advanced by each Party. If we had a decent civics education program, every 16 year old in America would be able to see that these priorities are not opposing, but interrelated. They are two sides of the same coin. Their presentation as opposing viewpoints clouds the real issue: our elected officials are not listening to each other, making it impossible to appreciate other perspectives; and their lack of real dialogue makes it impossible for them to understand where compromise might exist. The issues they raise about laws affecting abortion, guns, religious freedom, and voting restrictions are all legitimate Constitutional issues that will wind their way through the judicial branch of government. But they are not the major issues that sit unattended in the Congressional inbox. Those issues can be readily identified in a dialogue with Charlie Rose, but never seriously addressed in any dialogue between our elected representatives. What might motivate that dialogue is a heartfelt concern for the welfare of the people that elected them. What might keep them on track is the common goal of providing equal opportunity for every American.

So how do we burst the beltway bubble and force our government to attend to the people’s business? Some number of blogs ago, I proposed “voting rights legislation consisting of universal voter registration, Federal fair election guidelines, and populist regulations governing Federal campaign funding and candidate debates” (reference “American Revolution 2016”). My intent was to promote discussion around a proposal that would return power to the voter rather than to campaign funders. I still cannot envision another way to both preserve the promise of America for all of its citizens and prevent the breakup of our system of government.

We must begin to realize that the people we vote in office govern with our consent. Their failure is as much ours as theirs.