Pandering to Partisanship

A friend asked me the other day if I was voting for Bernie Sanders. I emphatically said "yes," but, unconsciously I tempered it with "except I'm not sure I want him to win." She laughed and said "huh, then why would you vote for him?" I muttered out some terrible answer about Bernie moving Hillary leftwards, and then found myself oozing liberal self-righteousness by parroting partisan pundits talking points about the benefits of another Clinton in office. While I was ashamed at how I explained my answer, I was also shocked at my initial response. I've signed up to campaign for Bernie. I've donated $30. I have a Bernie Sanders T-shirt and bumper sticker. I posted on Facebook two years ago that I hoped that he would run for president. I support his message on climate change, campaign finance, and inequality being inter-related and overdue topics of American politics. I've even been calling myself a democratic socialist from before he made the term popular. Ever since uttering I’m not sure I want him to win, I've had a thirty-six hour maelstrom of inner dialogue that would make Freud proud yet any ideologue sick.


Here is the abridged version:

Please don't lecture me like I'm your younger brother. And stop parroting those podcast pundits and pretending like their ideas are yours. Remember, I'm in your head. Give me something I haven't heard. Why don't we want Bernie Sanders to win?

As Alfred de Vigny wrote: "Seul le silence est grand; tout le reste est faiblesse. Only silence is strong, all the rest is but lies."

Braddah... stop with the pseudo-intellectual bullshit. It doesn't suit you. You don't even speak French...

Ok. I'm sorry. It’s not that I don’t want Bernie Sanders to win. I just am growing more and more weary of partisan politics. The more I learn, the less partisan I get. And, the less partisan I get the less I have to say. It's easy to yell at each other when you don't understand what the other person is saying. But, what happens when both sides have a point?

It gets really, really complicated.

We spend our lives being taught to trust things that are beyond our comprehension. We trust our parents. We trust our teachers. We trust our scientists. We trust that the world is round. We trust that increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere causes Earth to warm. We trust that the sun is 92.96 million miles away. We trust that photosynthesis is the process that allows plants to use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into sugar. For most of us, there's no way for us to verify these things, we have to take expert's word on it. This accumulation of trust is what separates us from our hominid cousins. And it got us from rain dances to the moon. But, this inclination to trust also fuels our partisanship.

Guns, abortion, climate change, gay rights, immigration, health care, the minimum wage, and economic policy-- these are complex issues, and we trust our media sources and favorite politicians to communicate the truth to us. But, we're not hearing the truth. We're getting a filtered version catered to some political bias.

This isn't just a modern problem. Henry Adams (great-grandson of the 2nd president and grandson of the 6th president) wrote in the mid 1800s that politics “had always been the systematic organization of hatred."

Blogging and social media are now the first line trenches in this "systematic organization of hatred." This blog and my Facebook have spewed more than their fair share of partisan warfare.

Yet, increasingly I’m understanding that there are moral truths buried beneath the data. But the policy recommendations behind those truths are often complex and messy. For example, gun regulations do decrease gun deaths, but probably not at the rate we would like to see. To achieve a meaningful reduction in mass murders, there is likely a slippery slope from gun regulation to gun confiscation. So, the NRA resists with everything they have. And both sides shoot flaming arrows at each other.

Fighting against climate change at the rate that we need to will harm our economy and result in government over-reach at an unprecedented scale. And both sides shoot flaming arrows at each other.
 

Ok... how does this relate to Bernie Sanders? He calls bullshit when it needs to be called. He’s identified campaign finance, climate change, and growing inequality as the biggest issues of our time. He’s rejected accepting support from Super Pacs. And he is calling for more democratic participation. Plus…. Have you looked at how far right the entire Republican field is? Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, the most moderate front runners, are both proposing tax plans that would cost just as much as  Bernie Sanders’ ambitious infrastructure and social programs. If Bernie Sanders is too far out in left field, then all of the Republican candidates are too far to the right. Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign countries through the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State. Who else could you possibly support…?

Yes, subconscious mind, you are right. I’m still #Feelingthebern. By saying that I’m not sure I want Bernie to win, maybe I’m just yearning for Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or another figure who could transcend partisanship and communicate complex topics. I’m disappointed in Bernie’s simplified populist rhetoric. I’m sure it makes good politics, but it makes bad policy and widens the political divide.

Bernie Sanders argues for a $15 federal minimum wage. It sounds good: fight for fifteen. If you're liberal, chances are that you support a massive increase to the minimum wage. When Republicans counter with the Congressional Budget Office study that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would lead to 500,000 less jobs, liberals respond with this study that a $15 an hour minimum wage would not in fact lead to any job losses in the fast food industry. With competing studies, shit hits the fan as both sides turn to morality. Conservatives say that liberals are just looking for a free hand out and liberals say that conservatives are selfish.

What we're missing is that both of those studies can be right at the same time. It is possible that the minimum wage would not lead to job losses while leading to 500,000 less jobs created. They are measuring different things. You're not going to get fired if the minimum wage goes up, but there is evidence that your kid might not be able to get a job. While Bernie Sanders and an army of progressives support the fight for fifteen-- I don't think any economists say the best route forward is a $15 federally mandated minimum wage. As this Brookings Institute study (left leaning think tank) argues, the minimum wage, because of cost of living differences, is best left up to state and local governments and should be half of the median income of a locale. That is not very compatible with a high federally mandated minimum wage. The federal government's role in ensuring a livable income is best utilized in the Earned Income Tax Credit. Studies show that it "encourages work, reduces inequality, raises family incomes, and moves families out of poverty." Paul Ryan (and most Republicans) and President Obama both agree. Yet, it's not part of our national dialogue. Maybe because the EITC is a Republican talking point, Bernie Sanders', while voting for increases in congress, has not mentioned it in his presidential campaign. 

Earned Income Tax Credit? You were more interesting when you were discussing Form Based Code last month. As your subconscious, let me explain to you that I officially have the attention span of a goldfish. You don’t create a political revolution by talking about tax credits. Just ask Donald Trump…  

Sure, the $15 minimum wage is a much simpler fight. And Bernie is pandering to the electorate by not getting into the wonk of the EITC. I support his quest to create a political revolution. And, what's a better rallying call: Enlist in the Fight for the Earned Income Tax Credit or: Fight for Fifteen. And so we fight for fifteen. The same is true of the free college debate. Why would we subsidize college for those who can afford it? Simply because free college for all sounds a lot better than free college for the super poor, reduced loan rates for those in the middle, and no change for those at the top. This simplified political rhetoric fires up the partisan army and we get even further away from actual solutions on real issues like climate change and inequality.

And I'm over it.

You know that you can’t gain national prominence without simplifying complex topics. It’s just not possible. And you also know that the notion of I'm over it is what led to the rise of the tea party and the freedom caucus. It's the mentality that gave rise to a conservative minority that uses shutting down the government as a bargaining chip. Aren't you worried about heading down the same path? What's at the end of that road?

That’s the problem. All of this partisanship is eroding our trust in political institutions. As David Brooks, everyone’s favorite centrist Republican, recently wrote: “Compromise and coalition-building is regarded as a dirty and tainted activity. People congregate in segregated cultural and ideological bubbles and convince themselves that the purest example of their type could actually win.” The Tea Party came to power by saying no. No to Obamacare. No to planned parenthood. No to the budget. No to immigration reform. Hell no to governance. And, because so many of us have lost faith in government, they're gaining power. Yeah, stick it to those shady characters in Washington. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan are both products of the Tea Party revolution. You can even see a semblance of it here on Kaua'i. The top vote getter for county council on Kaua’i won because he was a minority no. He ran a successful campaign by pointing out all of his no votes. He didn't even need to put forward a plan of what he was for, because just saying no to a dysfunctional political system is enough. 

But, while saying no might get you into power, you can't hold it for very long. In a democracy, the minority power fights against things, while the majority has to fight for things. When you’re in the majority, you evolve to actual problem solving or you get voted out. You need to say yes, and you need some type of moral ideology to get there.

Uhh... Your last post was called Fuck Ideology. Your argument being that ideology leads us to deny facts as we head into the partisan trenches. What are you trying to say now?

The governing factions of both political parties have the same basic moral ideology for the function of government. It's even enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what government is supposed to do.

Guess what American politician said this?

Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the values and virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them... It is essential that we maintain both the forward momentum of economic growth and the strength of the safety net beneath those in society who need help.

No, it wasn't Bernie Sanders or Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was Ronald Reagan in accepting the Republican nomination for President. I was surprised too. Republicans are motivated by supporting the poor just as much a Democrats. We have the same moral ideology. Republicans just put more emphasis on growing the economy and democrats put more emphasis on government support and taxation. Obviously there is a balance in there, and the two party system is supposed to be able to find that balance. That's what governing is all about. We need a moral ideology to get us on the right path, but we need to be flexible enough to adjust to the facts. Fuck ideology when it leads us to reject gun regulation because the NRA says so. Fuck ideology when it leads us to reject vaccines because Jenny Mccarthy says they cause autism. Fuck ideology when it leads us to shut down the government because we don’t believe in planned parenthood.

We've lost the balance because the extreme wings of both parties refuse to communicate. Because candidates like Hillary Clinton can openly say to a cheering crowd that her greatest enemy is the Republicans. No Hillary. That’s half the country. Or Kaua’i political candidates that claim to represent the silent majority. No. You represent everyone.

Luke, sometimes you sound like you're running for office. As your subconscious, I have to ask-- is this blog just a political platform for you? Because if it is, I want nothing to do with it...

This blog is anything but a political launch pad. It's more of an ironing board. The less passionately partisan I become, the less effective I would be as a politician. It's complicated is not a good answer. That doesn't create a Bernie Sanders revolution. And, if for some miracle my wonk could be an effective political tool, I worry even more about the effect that politics would have on my family and my own psyche. Henry Adams, a descendent of the largest political dynasty in the history of our country, wrote that

The effect of power and publicity on all men is the aggravation of self; a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim's sympathies; a diseased appetite, like a passion for drink or perverted tastes; one can scarcely use expressions too strong to describe the violence of egotism it stimulates.

So, the answer is an emphatic NO. Just because I'm interested in the political process does not mean I want to be a politician. There are plenty of good politicians who have resisted the morally corrupting powers of influence—but I'd prefer to avoid testing myself. Can't I be serious about being a participating member of democracy without running for office?

I was just trying to butter you up. Don't be so self-righteous. You would be a terrible politician. And, I got you to go from whining about being "over it" to being "excited about participating in democracy." Just leave it to your subconscious to bring you around. I also take my job seriously. 

My point in all of this is that I don't think we're all too far apart. Red, blue, or socialist, we all agree on the core issues. Government exists to promote happiness. In order to promote happiness we need to reduce poverty, maintain our natural environment, and make sure that we all have a fair shot at success. Sometimes I think that all of this fighting is just a big misunderstanding...  

And yes, out of all of the available options, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders and I hope that he wins.