The term “bi-partisan” in relation to policy is usually meant to imply that the policy is a good and/or reasonable one. In reality, this is simply an appeal to consensus, a variation of the Argumentum ad populum fallacy and the Argument to moderation fallacy. It occurs because the average citizen views the Democratic and Republican parties as opposing poles on the political spectrum. Therefore, if the two extremes can agree, the policy must be acceptable to most along the spectrum.
Unfortunately, this view is misguided. Contrary to conventional belief, the parties do not represent opposing poles but are merely two sides of the same coin, sharing far more similarities than differences. When one focuses on a very narrow band of the spectrum, which is characterized by mainstream American politics, the two sides appear distant. However, when one widens their aperture, and both parties are viewed in the context of the broader political spectrum, they are more akin to neighbors than opposite hemispheres. The former view is perpetuated by propaganda from both sides of the aisle which reinforces the false dilemma of choosing either Republican or Democrat.
One example is the discussion during the 2012 presidential election on the issue of contraception. Narrow-minded voters viewed President Obama and Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum as taking completely opposing sides in the debate over contraception. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act required all employers and insurers to cover the cost of birth control for employees while Rick Santorum favored the state’s ability to ban birth control. Superficially, these appear to be contradictory positions: one wants to provide, one wants to deny. But a deeper examination reveals that both want the government to make choices that belong to individuals. Both believe that the state has the right, and duty, to make decisions about what transpires in the privacy of the bedroom. Both are in favor of centralized state power versus individual rights, of an expanded role of the government in its citizens’ lives. Calling their views opposing is missing the forest for the trees.
Sadly, this point was missed by most who were content to allow the government to make decisions for themselves, and everyone else, provided the decision was in line with their own personal preferences. This short-sighted view ignores the fact that what can be done by force to one citizen can be done to any other. Allowing a coercive policy once because one agrees with it removes any protections available the next time, when one may not agree. It is as though people being put to death would oblige happily so long as the executions were to be conducted with their preference of bullet or bomb.
Republican and Democrat differences are not substantive, they are largely differences of degree or type. An example of the former can be seen in both sides support of entitlement spending (merely differing on how much). An example of the latter can be seen in their inconsistent definitions of freedom which are discussed here by Antony Davies. He points out that liberals, as embodied by those in the Democratic Party, define freedom with an emphasis on social liberties while denying economic liberties. Contrarily, mainstream conservatives, as embodied by the Republican Party, define freedom by extolling economic liberty while undervaluing civil liberties in many cases. As Professor Davies states, “The liberal-conservative dichotomy leads us to contradictions because it encourages us not to think in terms of first principles but to think in terms of issues.” Thomas Sowell devotes a section of his book, Intellectuals and Society, to discussing the logical problems inherent in Americans’ pragmatism when he points out the differences between attitudes, based on emotions, and principles, based on ideology.
In evaluating politics, the most important rule one can practice is to disregard everything a politician says and pay attention only to what he or she does. Actions speak louder than words—an adage that could not be more applicable to politics. When the partisan rhetoric is ignored and one actually examines the policies pursued by both Republicans and Democrats, it becomes obvious that the differences between them are far fewer than the similarities (for example, here is this list of 100 such similarities). Judge Andrew Napolitano made this point brilliantly in this broadcast, supposedly the reason his show was dropped by Fox News, when he eloquently asked,
What if the widely perceived differences between the
two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of the government policy
remains the same no matter who is in the White House? What if those vaunted differences between
Democrat and Republic were actually just minor disagreements? What if government policies didn’t change when
government leaders did? What if no matter who won an election,
government stayed the same? What if the
biggest difference between most candidates was not substance, but style? What if those stylistic differences were
packaged as substantive ones to reinforce the illusion of a difference between
Democrats and Republicans?
But, how did we arrive at
this narrow view, this mistaken assumption that the two parties are
substantively different? This view is enabled
by a voter culture in which people simply accept what is fed to them
without engaging in critical thinking. But this view is predisposed by the false model
of the political spectrum with which U.S. citizens have been
indoctrinated. Most voters are taught
that the political spectrum has liberals on the left extreme and conservatives
on the right extreme and moderates in the center. The typical characterization looks like this:
And this is the wider view of that same representation:
Unfortunately, this is a completely illogical and ideologically erroneous portrayal. There are several egregious flaws in this contrived model:
1. It assumes that liberalism/conservatism allow less law and more freedom of choice than anarchy (a complete lack of government and law where choice is only limited by means), which is clearly a false presumption. How can the peak of freedom be the middle ground between liberalism and conservatism when, as just demonstrated by the Santorum/Obama example, both subordinate individual rights to the state in many (most) matters?
2. It assumes that anarchy and communism are ideological neighbors despite the fact that they share nothing in common and are functional opposites.
3. It shows fascism and communism as opposites when, in reality, both are built around state control of production with the only difference between them being ownership of production (in communism the state is the owner; in fascism the individual can own but he is controlled by the state...essentially a semantic difference). Further, Nazism is merely a racial driven form of Fascism, rather than a separate system.
4. Most importantly, the axis has no inherent value, just labels, as it is built around issues, not first principles. The axis is rather just an expression of perceived difference between two arbitrary points (liberal and conservative). A bubble of freedom in the middle is framed by liberals on one side and conservatives on the other with everything beyond, in either direction, being undesirable. Slavery precariously surrounds the spectrum at both extremes as if it were two different words with two different meanings rather than the same concept.
But, it is flawed model that is taught to constituents through formal education, the media, and by the parties themselves. The implications of this erroneous framework are far-reaching. On this spectrum, the sacred bubble in the middle becomes the goal. The pinnacle of freedom is the precise midpoint between the two extremes (here again we meet our old friend the appeal to moderation). It is this fallacy and the false construction of the political spectrum that drive our obsession with “moderates” and “bi-partisanship.”
This illogical framework is not, however, how government
has been viewed for most of history. To see the true political picture we have to create a
model that actually represents reality.
So what does a more accurate representation look like?
We begin by giving meaning to the x-axis. Many factors influence a political system so
if we are limiting ourselves to just one axis, one factor of evaluation, then then
it must encapsulate the most fundamental, most basic, and most influential
discriminator. It must be the ‘first principle’, from which everything else
flows, the factor that drives all other factors. In evaluating political systems, this factor
is the power of government over the individual.
On an axis that represents this, the left extreme would be total
government control and power over the individual and on the right extreme would
be zero control of the government over the individual, the lack of government,
or anarchy). We can then logically
construct the graph to more accurately reflect the true political
spectrum…essentially recreating how it has always been understood. The result, the actual political spectrum,
looks more like this:
This graph correctly aligns political systems in
accordance with their principles relating to government power and corrects the
mistakes of the first representation. Anarchy
(where there is so little government people are free to oppress each other) is on the right; totalitarianism (represented by fascism and communism - each substantively as different from one another as republicans and democrats are from each other in terms of government power) is on the left.
But this spectrum's scale and relative distances are arbitrary; it still assumes that the moderate view is actually a middle ground between
two further extremes; it portrays liberals and conservatives as far more
different than they truly are. Therefore, it is useful to visualize
the true axis but it is not much more helpful in analyzing relationships between systems.
This last figure is a much better portrayal of the
spectrum in relation to American politics.
It ties anchors from U.S. history to the spectrum to show, more
accurately where practice has intersected ideology:
This figure also visually depicts the shift in America, over time, from principles of limited government towards more government power. This shift inevitably resulted in the greater government intervention in individual roles and reduction of liberties that we are seeing today. Jefferson warned of this shift 200 years ago, stating that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
The middle ground between the Republican and
Democrat parties is, in this broad view, as insignificant as the minutia of
their differences. This middle ground,
far from being the point of maximum freedom, of balance, of reason, is trapped
between two artificial poles. Here, it
can be seen where it truly lies - far from the "middle point" of the spectrum and solidly
to the left of center in terms of government power, as can be confirmed by polling data. Those in the middle ground are provided by both
parties with merely the illusion of choice, through the two-party system. And bi-partisanship simply dispenses altogether with that illusion.
If the American people desire to have real choice, then they
must abandon their fascination with “the middle ground” and their toleration of “moderates.” Those who occupy the “middle” between two
basically synonymous groups are there because they have not put any effort into
truly understanding either group, nor the greater system. They are there because they are ignorant. Those who are “undecided” are only focusing
on how a policy will superficially and immediately affect them, rather than
understanding the implications, the long-term effects, the 2nd and 3rd
order consequences and the history and logic of policies. These people are not the voice of reason;
they are even more witless than the sheep who blindly repeat the party line. The fallacious assumption that the golden
mean is always right is intellectually lazy and demonstrates a complete refusal
to engage in critical thinking.
If the nation wishes to have real choice then it must, through the ballot, dispense with both mainstream parties and move to a multi-party system. This would require not more short-sighted moderates, more dogmatic shills, or more uninformed centrists, but less of each. Instead, the nation would need more outliers, more of those
labeled “radical” and “extreme” by the mainstream parties in power who only wish to
retain and increase that power. What would be required are opposing viewpoints to both parties, not more bi-partisanship.
The playing field would have to be widened and real options given to Americans rather than the false
dilemma presented between Democrats and Republicans. Until that happens, the term “bi-partisan”
will be deluding to voters. Both mainstream parties
are driving the nation like a freight train toward more government power and
less freedom…and, in the face of that how we get there, in which compartment we
ride, by which party, is a meaningless and insignificant question.
In contemporary politics, when you hear the word bi-partisan it doesn’t mean you are moving toward a different destination, it simply means the train is moving faster in the direction you were already heading.
In contemporary politics, when you hear the word bi-partisan it doesn’t mean you are moving toward a different destination, it simply means the train is moving faster in the direction you were already heading.
No comments:
Post a Comment