Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The Price of Polarization

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default The Price of Polarization

    Whenever politicians proclaim that it is time for a great national debate on Issue X, it usually means they have no idea what to do about X. Over to you, John Q.

    But deflection carries risk in an era when the international political zeitgeist is dominated by paradox and backlash. At home and abroad, the tribalization of modern politics makes debate-mongering an unpredictable enterprise.

    Ask George W. Bush, who sees his approval ratings and the support for Social Security reform decline even as he spends his political capital spotlighting that issue. Or ask Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder how they fare in selling the French and other Europeans on their duty to endorse a dense if worthy constitution for the European Union.

    Self-inflicted wounds are the most interesting of political mistakes. President Chirac could have had the French Parliament ratify the constitution -- which is in fact a diplomatic treaty -- and avoided the now apparent risks in a May 29 referendum. And Bush was not responding to public clamor on Social Security.

    In both cases, many citizens may resent being dragged into complicated problems that they elect and employ politicians to resolve for them. "The people" understand, at least on an instinctive level, that what is really at stake when they are called in is a breakdown of compromise and trust among the politicians themselves.

    The mood of popular backlash spans the Atlantic: Bush's curious initial 60-day tour to rally support for a big but essentially unexplained idea bore a striking resemblance to the obfuscatory political campaign that Chirac has mounted to get French voters to endorse a 70,000-word document that few of them will even try to read.

    That telltale measure of the trouble that Chirac faces came this week when I heard French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier express joy that "this is a rare moment when the French are debating [the concept of] Europe." The people, he explained, "have understood that we have to have the means if we want a strong Europe" and will thus vote yes.

    Interesting if true. Even more interesting for an American is how Chirac initially sought to get votes by framing the constitution as a bulwark against "ultra-liberal capitalism" and, by implication, against American power in the world. Chirac has since softened these references, but German Chancellor Schroeder echoed the sentiment last week by claiming that there was interest outside of Europe in seeing the constitution fail.

    The Bush administration has in fact publicly endorsed a stronger Europe and adopted a positive attitude toward the constitution, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated to Barnier this week. But those statements can go ignored if they conflict with the political needs of the moment.

    As Wolfgang Schaeuble, a senior Christian Democratic politician, told John Vinocur of the International Herald Tribune in Berlin: "People here don't like Bush, and Schroeder tries to run for election against him every day of the year."

    There is clear tribal appeal in such tactics. Unfortunately, their use is not limited to Schroeder or to the other side of the Atlantic. Just as allied leaders who once cooperated against Cold War threats now find political profit in emphasizing their disagreements -- the tactic is not unknown at the Bush White House or Tony Blair's Downing Street office -- the governing class in Washington today is riven by give-no-quarter political competition that denigrates compromise across party and ideological lines.


    The Bush White House bears a great deal of the responsibility for what the president correctly deplores as a "lack of civility" in polarized Washington. His decision to force a public debate on Social Security, rather than follow the Reagan-era model of empowering a bipartisan commission to make painful compromises behind closed doors, is a good example of the confrontational approach and its costs.

    The Democratic minority in Congress responds in kind, preferring political gain from opposing Bush (and his nominees) to compromises that would result in credit for the president. I once covered tribal politics in Kenya. The atmosphere in Washington today would be familiar to any Kikuyu or Luo politician I knew there.

    "We are not just opponents or rivals now. We are enemies, with every fight being zero-sum," says a senior Republican lawmaker sorrowfully. Echoes a Democrat: "Compromise is seen as weakness by many of your constituents, and by all of your potential opponents in the next primary."

    Walter Lippmann wrote in 1925 that Americans would always favor a political system that created "not parties of principle, but governing majorities." The reverse would be disastrous, he suggested. Half-right, Mr. Lippmann.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050402049.html
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  2. #2
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: The Price of Polarization

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    The Bush White House bears a great deal of the responsibility for what the president correctly deplores as a "lack of civility" in polarized Washington. His decision to force a public debate on Social Security,
    There's no public debate on Social Security. In order for there to be a debate, the other side would have to put forth a position.

    Social Security: Where is the Democrat's Plan?

    As some of the more critical issues facing our nation finally start coming before those we elected to examine, debate and resolve them, one thing has become tragically apparent. The majority of those on the left side of the aisle have arrived ill-prepared to do the business of the 109th Congress, and unwilling to do the business of government.


    rather than follow the Reagan-era model of empowering a bipartisan commission to make painful compromises behind closed doors, is a good example of the confrontational approach and its costs.
    Actually, Reagan and congress came in for quite a bit criticism for their use of bi-partisan commissions. The feeling was that we elected congress to do that work, not to "pass the buck" to an unelected commission. Actually, I think the whole article was probably written as a joke. A writer for the Washington Post bemoaning the lack of closed door meetings? Surely he's joking.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2011, 03:48 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 09:15 AM
  3. how to go about uping my price
    By hf487 in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 05:51 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 02:14 PM
  5. 12 CD's for the price of 1
    By cinammonkisses in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-28-2006, 11:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •