THE ATTACK ON RATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

I thought Dave Ball was on to something important when he posed the question, Totalitarianism in America? in the commentary section of the 11/26/17 Observer Reporter.  His comments on the dangers of “eliminating independent thinking in society” were spot on and deserve consideration.  Unfortunately, his conclusion that progressive democrats and the “new world order” were the sole cause of the swing away from democratic principles, was a disappointment. 

Mr. Ball went from the profound to the partisan, ending his article with this reference to a popular right wing conspiracy theory (the new world order) in which a secretive liberal elite is dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties. In fact, all political ideologies in America have been responsible for eroding rational political discourse and responsible governance.

 Political discourse has been defined as the exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve societal problems.  Rational political discourse provides the framework that permits a pluralistic society to function. All political views should seek to find common cause to work within this framework and to achieve responsible governance.

For our democracy to function properly elected officials must work within an environment of ongoing negotiation which seeks to reconcile the views of citizens with different social, economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. 

  In the American political system, rational discourse is the referee that sets and enforces the rules for those with an ideology to pursue.  The game itself is messy and never ending.  But no political win or loss can be considered final because the ideas of the loser may become the wiser choice as the chess game continues, and opinions change over time. Only rational discourse and the need for responsible governance remain constant.

I could not agree more with Mr. Ball’s observation that there is a pervasive: “focus on eliminating critical and independent thinking at all levels of society.”  This troubling trend steps outside the rules of rational discourse which are based on “respectful tolerance” in which participants are in conflict but agree to listen to each other on a level playing field.  Instead the American public and its elected officials have too readily adopted both intolerance, where no discourse takes place and permissive tolerance where there is discourse, but unfair playing conditions placed on others, usually minorities.

How do we place the rational discourse referee back in the game and return to the playing field of respectful tolerance? First there must be the recognition that no political ideology is a replacement for rational discourse and responsible governance.  A political actor may hold an ideology within the democratic framework, but must be ready to listen and to compromise.  Unfortunately, each of our prevalent ideologies within American democracy are guilty of doing just the opposite.  This makes our polity operate more like an ongoing battle between fixed religions or one based on tribal loyalties and less like the pluralist system of conflict/compromise between competing views that was envisioned by our founders.

No political ideology can claim clean hands when it comes to undermining rational discourse.  I will start in my corner of the playing field with liberalism. Since the end of WWII and with greater zeal, since the end of Soviet Communism, liberals have sought to replace elements of nationalism with elements of “global equality” and “global democracy”.  Open trade, open borders and transnational legal systems seemed like the wave of the future in 1990.

Following a devastating recession, many Americans did not buy into this vision.  These voters were convinced that such policies attacked their civic identity and that liberalism no longer spoke to their needs. Similar opposition occurred all over the Western World as liberal policies on trade and immigration were vilified. Clearly for progressives to regain the high ground, not only morally in the age of Donald Trump (hopefully only a very strange and temporary outlier) but also politically as an active participant in achieving pluralist solutions, we must open our minds and find a new path that more voters can identify with.  Not unlike the philosopher Kings praised by Plato in the Republic, liberals thought the game plan was beyond reproach and that the country would follow.  We were wrong on both counts.

On a second point, liberals have been too open to embracing identity politics at the expense of overlooking policies that are attractive to all Americans.  For example, once Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton identified prospective Trump voters as “deplorables” there was little opportunity for liberals to engage them through rational discourse, either during or after the election.  Moreover, Clinton speeches praising and evoking the rights of Immigrants, minorities and the LPGT community were interpreted by many white Americans as a plan to leave them behind.

Conservative ideology has offered no better track record in encouraging rational discourse. The Republican party has welcomed tea party ideologues into their ranks, who by definition refuse to compromise on social issues, taxes or spending. 

Moreover, the Republican goal of staying in power over adopting respectful tolerance and a level playing field has resulted in their embrace of a populism that appeals to some of the worst instincts of their constituency.  This tendency has included the support of candidates and elected officials who are guilty of exploitation, dehumanization, cruelty and the abuse of power in order to achieve political goals.   Now there are few elected Republicans who are willing to seek bi partisan solutions on a level playing field. There is no willingness to utilize rational discourse in order to achieve responsible governance.

Lastly, there are libertarians, who perhaps are the most ideological of all voters. Under their worldview individual liberty trumps equality, the need for regulations and government involvement in many areas of social and economic life. Libertarians, once the forgotten sister of American politics received a huge boost when the Supreme Court issued its holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

Now political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and corporations have the same rights as individuals in providing unlimited political contributions.  Much of the funding contributed by billionaires and corporations has been earmarked for libertarian and conservative positions. The resulting media driven political propaganda is most often inflammatory and does nothing to encourage rational discourse.

 Libertarians generally believe that all forms of property rights should be beyond the reach of the state and that state functions should be limited to such matters as national defense, law enforcement, curbing infringements on property rights and operating a judicial system.  Less state involvement changes the rules of rational discourse by seeking to eliminate many issues that other voters care about from the political arena.

Democracy by itself can never guaranteed rational discourse and reasonable governance.  The citizens must demand such conduct from their political leaders.  The world is full of absolute majorities that appear democratic but impose their will on minorities without any sense of respectful tolerance.  The Unites States has avoided this outcome only because our founding fathers had the foresight to insist on The Bill of Rights and such institutions as judicial review, separation of powers, supermajority voting rules, and federalism. These checks and balances have greatly reduced the danger of a majority espousing a single ideology from turning the nation into a kind of totalitarian state.

Even with these constitutional safeguards, we need rational discourse and responsible governance to weed out morally unacceptable lawmakers, avoid stagnation, and to minimize partisan law making. Ideologues may not like the rules of open rational discourse, but they do need to follow them if we are to return to governance that encourages all views to be shared, considered and voted on. After all, the ideology in the majority, will someday be in the minority and be thankful the referee is overseeing the playing field.

In the end, a good, just and fair society depends on well thought out insights into our ever changing culture and the world around us. Open discussion, delivered by elected officials with competence and clarity, not conformed solely to ideology, will guarantee rational results and the survival of our constitutional democratic republic.