When asked after the Constitutional Convention what kind of government the new document was proposing, Franklin supposedly answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it." By "republic" as typically used in the 18th Century, he meant a representative government, the country governed by elected, enlightened white men with power disbursed rather than totally concentrated in one person. Such a government would be a new experiment in the existing world. In our time Franklin's point is still relevant.
Tomasky is a journalist, not an historian. He is generally perceived as liberal, though conservatively liberal rather than left liberal. His beginning thesis is that in this time of division and polarization we need to remember that the country has always been polarized and divided. Polarization and division is the our normal situation. As a student of American history, I totally agree. The days of consensus and unity are mostly an illusion with brief exceptions like the country uniting to win World War II.
His commentary is divided into three parts. 1) His history of division and polarization in our country. This content is the reason I was attracted to the book. 2) His account of our recent decent into our current polarization, which is excellent. 3) His prescription of what we can do about our current polarization. I am mostly skeptical of what he says here because I am skeptical that our current division can be overcome. It can be toned down, but it will not be overcome in the sense of the people coming together to get along and agree on broad issues. The naive say we need to reach across the aisle, start talking to each other, and find common ground. This is not going to happen, sorry to say.
The adoption of our hallowed Constitution in 1787-88 was very contentious. We were divided from the beginning over whether this document should set up a new government uniting the 13 independent states, giving up much of their autonomy to a new central government. The Constitution was adopted and placed in action, but it could have gone the other way. The arguments between supporters of the Constitution and opponents of the document make fascinating reading today. The author says that the issues raised in the ratification debate are the basis of todays division although since he is not an historian he doesn't flesh this out. I agree with this point.
The author writes of the CC and the Connecticut Compromise. The CC was adopted 5-4-1 and created an unequal Senate in terms of population. But we have to remember how it all started with 13 independent countries who somehow united to fight for their collective independence. Hamilton wanted to do away with the states, but this was never going to happen. The states had to be respected as states. James Madison went to the convention bent on proportional representation in the Senate, but he failed to achieve his main goal. Millions of scholarly words have been shed like blood over this so-called compromise. Big deal, yes, as to what the Constitution said about two Senators for each state and the election of Representatives with most of the details left up to the states. A cause of division for sure, but it is what is. Eliminating single-district house elections is not going to happen to change much of anything.
Political parties began immediately in the 1790's with the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. "Factions" as they were called then were inevitable. The basic division was over the size and scope of the new national government, the backbone of our political disagreements today.
The presidential election in 1800 took 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before Jefferson won over Burr.
Federalists talked in Hartford, Connecticut, as the War of 1812 ended about leaving the Union.
The author reminds the reader that Martin Van Buren is the father of the modern political party. I believe in political parties so Van Buren is one of my heroes.
The 1880's brought the country the Republican split between the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds, between progressives and traditionalists.
In 1924 the Johnson-Reed immigration bill. The history of immigration in this country, a source of controversy from the beginning, does not greatly engage me.
Of course, the Progressive Era and the New Deal with the great depression created unprecedented division.
In 1950 the country was 88% white. There is right-wing trouble right there.
Today's "fracture" has a long and glorious history in our country's past. THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN POLARIZED.
One of the author's most important reminders is to recount the past when there was INTRAparty division as when there were traditional Republicans and liberal Republicans, when there Southern Democrats and Northern Liberal Democrats. When the Republicans took up the mantle of white resistance to the civil rights movement, the parties purged themselves and we moved to the largely homogenized parties of today: conservatives in one party and liberals in the other. Democrat do show some inner diversity, but the Republicans move in lock-step behind their leader.
The author gives Theodore Roosevelt too much credit as a progressive. TR was progressive-light and by the time he would have run again in 1920 he was solidly back in the traditional Republican mold. He never really left it.
Regarding our current polarization, much credit must be given to Newt Gingrich. He made polarization the center of his politics. Newt started it in the 90's as the parties solidified to their current structure. Gingrich brought the culture wars to Congress.
Now we have a President who doesn't just sow division. He depends on it for this survival.
inequality and political polarization go hand in hand. Make the rich richer and everyone else will benefit says nobody but Republicans. We are more consumers than citizens. Fat and lazy, prosperous but ignorant. We have been sold the pernicious idea that the market is always right. So what if CEO and corporate profits have skyrocketed. The market is right!!! Inequality and conspicuous consumption work together. (I get dizzy in the supermarket aisles. Do we really so many choices?)
I laugh when I hear people say "it's both parties." Maybe so, but as this author takes pains to point out, it's mostly one party, and we know which party that is.
The authors list of things to "fix" the situation. My view is that the situation is "unfixable."
The author's assertion is that today's division is closely aligned to the divisions between Jefferson and Hamilton at the beginning of the country, but he doesn't spell this out. As someone who is historically minded, this assertion is of enormous intellectual interest to me.
1. End partisan gerrymandering. Hard to argue with this.
2. Bring back at-large Congressional elections. I can't get into this idea.
3. Ranked-choice voting. I am not a political scientist.
4. Expand the House. Okay.
5. Eliminate the Senate filibuster. Not sure if this is a good idea.
6. Get rid of the Electoral College. Mixed emotions.
7. Revive moderate Republicanism. Sure, but how is this going to happen with DJT in charge?
8 Create foreign exchange programs within the US. Sure, why not. Who cares?
9. Reforms in high school.
10.Reforms in the workplace.
11.Expand civis education. I can go for this.
12.Insist on a left that insist on fracture. No!
13.Demand that corporate leaders submit to social responsibility. I can't see it happening.
14.Reduce college to 3 years. I have no opinion.
I am positive that I am a pessimist. Not much will change in my lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment