“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold . . .”
- William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”
When Barack Obama first came to national notice in 2004, part of his inspirational message was that the United States was not a nation of just red states and blue states, but instead of shared experiences. Implicit was the belief that, as people from what were really purple states (purple people?), legislators ought to be able to find common ground and act in bipartisan ways.
usliberals.about.com/...
Obama has largely tried to maintain this message throughout the years of his presidency. But I am finding it harder and harder to believe it is true; it is an unfulfilled aspect of his legacy.
We watch the maps on election nights, and far too often they are predictable in their outcome. Many of us hope that changing demographics will cause more red states to turn blue, but that is a process that will play out over years, analyzed last year by DKOS contributor Chachy.
www.dailykos.com/...
In the meantime Republican gerrymandering and other structural problems have given us far too many states with Republican governors and state legislations, and all the problems that they entail (North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, Michigan . . . there are simply too many examples to begin listing them all).
Compounding the problem is the deeply partisan country that we have become. We have endured years of GOP obstructionism, of a political philosophy that it is better to block and delay all attempts at government action than to let anything be accomplished that might give credit to your opponents. In the face of that opposition, it is actually remarkable how much Obama and the Democrats were able to accomplish during his presidency, as Louis Kreisberg notes in a recent article in HuffPost.
www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Millennial voters overwhelmingly support Senator Bernie Sanders this year. But millennials, born after the Reagan Revolution came to power in 1980, have never known a Republican Party that has not careened madly to the right, over the edge. Millennials have no historical sense of Republican legislators who could be for civil rights, for environmental protection, for investing in infrastructure, for using government action as a force for good. So perhaps they cannot be blamed if their world view is that nothing good could ever come from the conservative side. Moderate Republicans are a vanishing species, culled by primary challenges from rabidly red ultra-conservatives. Similarly, blue dog Democrats are vanishing. Many on the left are quite pleased with that, as blue dog legislators have seemed so often to be Republican lite. But where conservative Democrats have disappeared, have they been replaced by progressives? Or do the replacements seem to be more tea-flavored? We can only hope that the Republican Party implodes this year and reconstitutes itself as a party that appeals to a broader electorate, but even if this occurs at the national level it seems unlikely at the state level.
This year’s Democratic primary contest seems to be moving the party strongly to the left, the influence of Sanders, independent socialist until he sought the nomination for president. This could be a healthy course correction. In the 90s Democrats, shut out of the White House for so many years, tacked to the center during the Bill Clinton administration to gain enough support to win the presidency, but many on the left have been dissatisfied that our “side” continued to drift right. A number of commentators have noted how today’s Americans, especially Democrats and independents, are now more likely to self-identify as liberal, measured in a Gallup poll last year.
www.gallup.com/...
Some analysts now suggest that in the years to come, perhaps even the next election cycle, young progressives will take over the party and continue its movement towards the extreme left.
So where does that leave moderate centrists? As a nation we do not have a historical tradition of multiple political parties with real strength; there is shared power between the two main parties (or, in the contemporary era, gridlock). Sometimes one party manages to dominate . . . for a time. Today moderate centrists are considered such a small segment of the electorate that candidates are no longer interested in appealing to them, and will not even tack to the center in the general election because the number of votes gained is insufficient to change the election results. Ambitious candidates commit to veering hard right, or hard left.
We credit the ancient Greeks with developing the philosophy of moderation in all things as a key to success and happiness in life. But this philosophy does not seem to be valued in our age of shock entertainment, win at all cost playbooks, and no pain no gain lifestyles (or is that “feel the burn”?) Will this be best for the future of our country?
Some principles are always worth fighting for. Voting rights for all citizens. Care systems that especially look out for the most vulnerable members of our society. Protection of the environment. You get the picture?
But I would argue that there is still value in seeking common ground with the opposition, when it gets the government to take action to benefit the purple people. The denizens of “middle earth” may have some wisdom after all. Trade policies don’t have to be all or nothing. They can be negotiated to be fair, enforceable, and provide mutual benefits rather than a zero sum. Foreign policy can seek to avoid war while still maintaining strong international coalitions that promote justice in the world. We can find a good balance between protecting the rights of individuals versus the needs of the society at large. It is possible to steer a middle course without abandoning your own principles and goals.
This probably will not appeal to the many who feel they cannot achieve their objectives without pure adherence to their revolution and their code. In their view we must rend the center apart, sail merrily to the right and left and off the edge of the map. But remember as we go beyond . . . here be dragons.