A Nation Divided

It’s the best of times; it’s the worst of times.

America’s tale of two cities is the story of a nation deeply divided over health care reform and what the future holds.

It doesn’t matter which poll you read; half of the country welcomes health care reform as long overdue; the other half dismisses it as another government intrusion-and with it-the potential of bankrupting our country for generations to come.

The bitter split over health care, actually embodies the division taking place among American voters, the U.S. Congress, and the national media; with its cast of characters situated on the fringes with little representation in the center.

How did a country which survived the ravages of the Civil War, who came together during the Great Depression, spoke with one voice in defeating Nazi Germany; and later Communism become so divided in such a short period of time?

Alan Brinkley, Professor of American History at Columbia University, thinks the United States has always been divided; it’s only become a little more evident with the explosion of the Internet, which has made it easier for people to express sharp opinions.

Brinkley believes health care isn’t really what’s dividing the country, but rather the ``sense among many white Americans that the United States is changing (as it is demographically).’’   ``It doesn’t help’’, Brinkley writes in an email, ``that we are in a recession with 10 percent unemployment.’’

Looking back at history over the last 50 or 60 years shows how as the Cold War withered away, the country lost its collective purpose and became torn apart at the seems over the Vietnam War, the race riots which engulfed many major U.S. cities, the flood of immigrants to overpopulated urban centers, and a whole host of intrest group politics: from women rights (including abortion) to gay rights (including marriage).

The disaffected, the rebellious, the resentful, and all those left out the political narrative, who didn’t find their interests being represented in Washington, moved away from the Democratic or Republican party (even if in name only) and voiced their concerns with the excess of nonprofit interest groups sprouting up and growing larger every year. The most recent issue of the Encyclopedia of Associations lists 24,421 nonprofit organizations representing a range of special interests dealing with labor issues, pro-life, health care, religious organizations, social welfare, you name it—if you have a pet peeve-chances are there’s a nonprofit out there all too willing to welcome you into their tent.

The defeat of President Clinton’s health care reform in the 1990’s wasn’t so much that it was a bad proposal, as much as the bill didn’t have the support of the American Medical Association, the largest and most influential  medical lobbying group in Washington.  ``Hillary-Care’’, as it was labeled, never stood a chance.

In 1987, it wasn’t so much that Robert Bork was ill-equipped to serve on the Supreme Court as was that there were 185 liberal organizations, including Norman Lear’s ``People For the American Way’’, the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women, and the National Abortion Rights Group, all flooding the halls of the Capitol and pushing the ``swing voters’’ of the Senate Judiciary Committee to their corner of the ring. The Committee voted down Bork’s nomination 9-5 and the full Senate likewise rejected the controversial nominee 58-42.

Increasingly more public officials aren’t looking to the party platform on how to proceed or vote on an issue as they are taking cues from the most influential interest group who are usually equipped with the deepest pockets.

Just take a look at which representatives are receiving the most financial support from the top 50 industries (as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics) and you’ll get a better sense of how politics is drifting away from the party and into the arms of special interests.

The polarization of the United States Congress has become more pronounced by the increase (some say reckless increase) of filibusters over the years. President Obama, moreover, wasn’t able to pick up a single Republican supporter on his final heath care bill, and the Republicans are threatening more intransigence on other pieces of legislation (financial and immigration reform etc) right up until the mid-term elections in November when the President’s party traditionally loses support with voters.

What’s causing such sharp division?

Congressional historians’ often attribute this polarization to the explosion of electoral gerrymandering (redistricting) which builds tailor-made constituencies along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, to benefit a particular party or an incumbent. Matthew Baum, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University thinks gerrymandering effectively weakens the accountability of the legislature to majority opinion, by facilitating a shift from having relatively "more" moderate representatives of so-called "swing" districts to having relatively fewer of those and relatively more ideologically extreme representatives of more ideologically homogenous districts.’’ This partisan ploy, while building safe seats, also ends up creating representatives on the extreme sides of the political divide, with fewer and fewer representing the middle, according to Baum.

Arguably the most damaging feature of our poisoned political environment, which has lent a destructive voice all its own, has been the advocacy journalism offered by FOX News and MSNBC. These news organizations aren’t interested in presenting both sides of issue in a fair and balanced way. Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow represent the left; both seem only interested in booking guests whose ideology meshes with their own or whatever personal crusade they’re promoting on any given week.

On the other extreme over at FOX--Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are especially adept at distorting issues, tapping into pent-up prejudices and stirring up a vicious atmosphere of fear and hate.

What’s worse, members of Congress, representing their extreme views appear on FOX and MSNBC, not so much to be put under the microscope by an inquisitive journalist, but to advance their agenda and speak to their base.

Words escape me just how destructive FOX and MSNBC has been to the political dialogue, they have done such a disservice to both parties, and are  partially responsible for causing such a toxic division among America voters.

If it wasn’t for the superb work done by Charlie Rose over at PBS; or  Anderson Cooper on CNN,  Bob Schieffer on CBS with ``Fact the Nation’’, David Gregory on NBC with ``Meet the Press’’, or ABC’s ``This Week’’ would viewers ever benefit from any constructive news analysis?

It’s much too soon and unfair to blame Mr. Obama for failing to represent the transformative change he promised as a candidate so early into his administration.  Who knows, after health care reform starts to take shape, when more people are put back to work in the coming months, and consumer confidence rises again, Obama might very well have lived up to his billing.

But the extreme views advanced by representatives on both sides of the aisle; the fear and hate mongering voiced among some members of the Tea Party Movement, death threats to both Republican and Democrat representatives from deranged citizens, and distorted views disseminated by talk show hosts are only a few of the most disturbing obstacles that are keeping the United States a divided nation.

-Bill Lucey
[email protected]

Comments

[Betty Maurice]

A thoughtful and persuasive argument. Well done.