What We Should Learn From Last Year in Politics

As the last polling stations closed on Tuesday, November 8, The New York Times forecast that Hillary Clinton had an 85 percent chance of winning the White House, FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of victory, and Reuters topped it off at 90 percent. It seemed as though Democrats were poised for victories in both chambers of Congress. The 2016 election was meant to be a watershed victory for progressivism and the beginning of a new liberal future for America.

Instead, Donald Trump rode into power on a wave of discontent as the leader of a conservative resurgence. The election marked the pinnacle of a trend of increasing partisanship and a disturbing aversion to compromise. Since then, every day has been a pitched battle between ideological extremes that has brought our government to a standstill and threatens the stability of our country. While it may be tempting to take your gloves off, it is imperative that we begin the process of reconciliation to forge a bipartisan future for America.

How did we get here?

Most of us—regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum—can agree that the last election was complete chaos. Tensions brewed: Clinton ignorantly described Trump’s base as “basket of deplorables,” and Trump called on the “Second Amendment people” to assassinate a potential President Hillary Clinton. This kind of slander should come without surprise, however. Insolence has become the defining character of this era’s political atmosphere. The American public has been caught between partisanship’s superficial entanglements. Both Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular nominations of their respective parties in the modern era, and both parties have shunned the slightest diversity of thought, the slightest divergence from their agendas.

The entrenched partisanship belies the reality that independents constitute nearly half of Americans. As Democrats have grown increasingly liberal, and Republicans have grown increasingly conservative, independents have become increasingly ostracized from political participation. The party bloc has become the default interface of American politics, where legislation is hammered out in party chambers rather than on the floors of Congress. Discussions no longer involve the actual effects of policy, but rather fixate around vote numbers and the interests of party leaders. With the recent passing of the American Healthcare Act, for example, there was no final score of the bill on the floor of the House; Republicans were nonetheless rallied to vote for it along party lines by House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Gerrymandering—the redrawing of district boundaries along partisan lines—has, in part, made political extremism expedient. Gerrymandering limits competition by cramming as many opposition voters into small districts as possible. Congressional districts. like North Carolina’s 12th and Maryland’s 3rd, often snake across hundreds of miles in a desperate bid to pack like-minded people together. This safeguards the position of the majority party and artificially polarizes voters by ideology. By isolating the populace into two distinct halves, parties are free to pander to their base and force people to vote for their increasingly extremist and narrow-minded agendas. While it is easy to balk at the policies of the other party, platforms that were sure political suicide a few years ago are now the mainstream.

Our detachment from one another is exacerbated by the cycle of fear and distrust peddled by politicians and media outlets. While pundits were quick to attack the divisive and incendiary coverage put forth by fringe organizations, like Breitbart, during the election cycle, many mainstream media outlets have also become troublingly political and biased. A Pew Research poll indicates that 74 percent of Americans believe news organizations favor one side of the political spectrum. The clickbait headlines mocking liberals and bashing conservatives have made politics dangerously entertaining and addictive. By spewing information with a partisan slant, the modern media forces us to live in our pre-existing biases. While external factors have tainted our political climate, new ideological rifts have shaken up internal party politics as well.

The stunning Democratic loss can be attributed to the exclusionary splintering within the party. Bernie Sanders’ campaign electrified young and progressive-minded Democrats and found large support amongst white Rust Belters and independents. Clinton’s nomination disillusioned many of Sanders’ supporters, likely costing the Democrats the critical states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Post-election, the Democratic party has failed to learn from its failure, choosing instead to abandon its status as the “big-tent party,” the evolved descendent of Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition. The new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez has claimed that all Democrats have to be pro-choice, alienating roughly 20 percent of Democrats that are pro-life. Furthermore, the far left has become more and more outspoken, alienating Democrats who do not believe in identity politics.

The political infighting that led to Trump’s election has also severely hurt Republicans. Recent polls have shown severe dissatisfaction even in the states Trump carried: President Trump polls at 41 approve/51 disapprove in North Carolina, 44 approve/47 disapprove in Wisconsin, 41 approve/47 disapprove in Florida, and—shockingly—42 approve/54 disapprove in the consistently Republican Texas. The “Never Trump” movement never picked up steam as a result of the seventeen candidates running for the nomination. Trump managed to stand out from the carbon-copy playing field, directly demonstrating the power of extremism in swaying voters.

So, what can we learn?

Polarization has led to dissension, as near-majorities of Americans find discussing politics with those with opposing political views to be “stressful and frustrating” (Pew Internet Research). Clashing with our ideological foes over Twitter can be exhausting and the thought of retreating to our favorite InfoWars or DailyKos story may seem appealing. It is critical, however, that we take the initiative to step out of our political echo chambers and reach out to one another in order to better understand other opinions and the very causes that we claim to be fighting for.

To truly advance an agenda and realistically implement our vision for the world, Americans must accept bipartisanship. By distancing ourselves from ideological extremes and embracing centrism—a tolerance of ideas we may not openly support—we can communicate with each other and expand the reach of our goals and outlook. At the same time, moderates cannot be marginalized and coerced into acceding to the whims of an extremist minority. Rather, it is important for moderates to stand steadfastly by the principles of political centrism and by the belief in the superiority of compromise over partisan bickering.

That being said, the two-party political system has been a longstanding part of American politics since 1789 for good reason—it’s often the simplest way to broadcast opinions and effectuate broad changes. In this way, the two-party system has been working very well in convincing Americans to accept wide-sweeping agendas.

The Trump presidency serves as a wake-up call to understand these failures of partisanship, however. From this point on, it is important for Democrats and Republicans to truly comprehend the basis of their beliefs in order to form a bipartisan compromise. Staunch Democrats should be questioning their beliefs not to become Trump apologists, but to understand their position to be able to better argue and support it. Staunch Republicans should do the same to be able to offer objective defenses of the Trump administration. In effect, many partisan voters will end up abandoning the longstanding hard-set party lines, better reflecting the reality that political identification is on a wide spectrum and not in two camps.

Indeed, a multitude of similarities do exist: most Americans support infrastructure developments, education investments, responsible economics, amongst other tenets. Most importantly, Americans share an interest in the betterment of the nation. As President Obama famously quipped, “there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.”

———————————————————————————————————————

Timeline

“A Buildup in Partisanship”

2009:

Jan 28: House Democrats passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—an $831 billion stimulus package to rejuvenate the economy after the Great Recession—without a single Republican vote.

2010:

Mar 22: After a contentious debate, the House voted 219-212 to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, allowing President Obama to sign healthcare reform, or Obamacare, into law. The legislation failed to gain the support of any House Republicans.

Oct 23: Senate Minority Leader and Leader of Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell boldly announced his intention for “President Obama to be a one-term president” in an interview with the National Review.

2013:

Oct 1: Tensions between President Barack Obama and House Republicans came to a head when negotiations over how to fund the government failed. The funding gap sparked the third-longest government shutdown in American history, shuttering vital services and agencies.

Nov 21: After the confirmation process of a number of President Obama’s judicial nominees stalled in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option” to end the Republican filibuster. The nominees could now be confirmed without any Republican support.

2016:

Feb 23: Hours after the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans announced that they would not hold confirmation hearings for a replacement judge until after the upcoming election. Although President Obama nominated the moderate Judge Merrick Garland, Republicans refused to hold a vote, creating the longest vacancy in the history of the court.

Nov 8: Donald Trump wins 306 electoral votes to become the 45th president, but would lose the popular vote by three million votes. Far from the claimed “landslide victory,” Trump would instead face questions about the legitimacy of his victory.

2017:

Jan 20: Newly sworn-in President Trump’s Inaugural Address would reiterate campaign commitments to “end the American carnage,” invoking an unusually troubled and partisan tone.

Jan 21: The Women’s March movement would become the largest single-day protest in America, strongly protesting the presidency with the slogan “Not My President.” Some critics pointed out, however, that pro-life organizations were excluded from the event on the basis of their beliefs.

Feb 8: Trump unveils his entire cabinet, which included controversial picks such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. These nominees were largely confirmed along partisan lines.

Apr 7: Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court after Republicans invoked the “nuclear option” on the Senate floor, shutting down the Democratic filibuster against Gorsuch’s nomination.

May 4: The Republican-sponsored bill to overhaul Obamacare narrowly passed in the House 217-213. This bill faced bipartisan challenges in its uncompromising stances on rolling back all provisions of Obamacare, such as protecting pre-existing conditions or expanding Medicaid eligibility.