Polar Icing

Madame M:

Hope you’re not too disappointed, but my answer is NOT going to be that comprehensive.

You are correct that we seem to lack the ability to see connections.  Like selfish children, we want, but don’t want to pay, and certainly don’t see our common interest with our fellows.  Yet we scream loud when things aren’t there for us, and go into refusal/denial/scream louder mode when it’s pointed out that that’s the result of what we said we wanted.

Neither party cooperates well anymore, and the in-need-of-reform rules of the Senate don’t help.  But because they are the weaker party (money/power base, etc.), Dems tend to seek compromise more.  The other party, almost never anymore.  Mitt Romney says he will work in a bipartisan fashion if elected by finding “good Democrats.”  Since compromise has not been his party’s forte, doesn’t that just mean Democrats that can be intimidated?  Since they are easier to isolate and make vulnerable, he could probably find some, unlike his own party, who rarely was willing to work out or compromise on anything.

We are a changed people, and these are changed times.  Without a single systemic threat (Axis, Communism) to rally against and focus our energies, we’ve often been a divided people.  And some periods, such as pre-Civil War, are so intensely divided, it almost seems only some system-seismic event can change that.  Moderates usually are pushed out or sickened out by the ever more polarized stances of the parties in an environment that has such room for country bickering.  Rome, when it stood undisputed master of the civilized Western world, soon took to bitter, destructive civil wars.  An ethic of expansion—whether for empire or capitalism—can have the same effect if frustrated.

Our campaigning has transitioned from vetting and informing to one of endless news cycles and spectacle.  It feeds the love my side/ hate the other side phenomenon, and the fracturing of communications channels only shovels it in.

We have certainly had a splintering of issues, and that’s part of it too.  But overall, we don’t have issues, we have political theater.  Spectacle and contention among elites, perhaps, but nothing for or about the average person.

No doubt that we are more selfish and inward looking as a people, with less community.  Even when we don’t (or say we don’t) want to be that way.  But it translates into how easy we segment ourselves, and how comfortable we are with it.    The way we live, the where we live.  Even the process.  Ear buds anyone?  They keep you shut off from the world and people around you, and easy to dismiss them by easy caricatures, rather than know them for who and what they are.

And this mantra of hyper-individualism we have hypnotized ourselves with—do it all yourself, and keep everything yourself, and let others do the same—is unrealistic, foolish, self-destructive, and polarizing.

Gerrymandering may be one of the biggest causes of our polarization, and drives much of the lack of give and take.  With so many seats in Congress “safe” for a party (and all the damage that does to democracy), it becomes easier for those opposite the president to thumb their noses.

We also have classic change, and classic reactionary response, going on in the country.  Demographics are changing, and a large portion of the “traditional” group feels threatened by the change, which they perceive will bring a change of their life and values.  Marry that up with a slight conservative preference for a majority of citizens, and you get the struggle between those who want change (or at least acceptance of certain progressive ideas) and those who are afraid of change (especially the change they can see and feel coming).

By transference we then project all this on to two figures who compete to direct the executive branch, pouring most focus and partially or totally ignoring all the other major players in the equation (Congress, Fed, G-20, Big Business and wealthy, etc.).

This answer went long.  I am very behind on replying to JC’s comments.