In an NBC News poll last month, only 23% of Americans said they believed the country was heading in the right direction. Among Republicans, only 7% liked the way things were going. (41% among Democrats.)
In a country with such deep dissatisfaction among major factions, including this one, it is no surprise that right-wing extremism and even desperation are on the rise. On the contrary, when a significant portion of the population loses almost all confidence in their country, its institutions, and its future, a tendency towards political violence is almost to be expected. and its future cannot be trusted.
It is also a challenge to right-wing leaders. Will they recognize the danger of growing frustration and work to restore public trust and mend violations, or will they tell voters that such lack of faith and trust is justified? Do you seek power and use it to provoke?
Unfortunately, most people choose that second course of action. Worse, if your power grab depends on convincing people that government isn’t working, the incentive structure rewards you when you prove that point of view is accurate. give.
A new poll conducted here in Georgia for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offers another perspective on the issue. In a poll conducted by At the University of Georgia’s Graduate School of Public and International Relations, voters expect elected officials to compromise to find solutions to our problems, or to stick to principles even if it means no progress is being made. I was asked which of the two is more important.
Again, the partisan differences were clear. Overall, voters are open to compromise, with 54% telling pollsters they value negotiated compromise over a principled stalemate. Of his Democratic supporters, 71% said they want a negotiated solution. But the majority of Georgia Republicans (48%) say they don’t want compromise, they want a principled stalemate, with a minority of 40% saying they want compromise. You’ll find that sentiment played out in a cast of characters Georgia Republicans elected to Congress, including Marjorie Taylor Green and Andrew Clyde. It’s a testament to the corrosive power of gerrymandering that the purple state that elected Congress has one of the most extreme delegations in the country, the Republican House of Representatives.
And looking back on why we got into this situation, Georgia is playing a key role again. A growing number of historians and political scientists have identified Georgia legislator and later Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as the current patient of political dysfunction. In the early 1990s, Gingrich told the world that he was trying to change the tone and character of American politics, and unfortunately he has largely kept his promises.
Much of its scholarly analysis, centered on Gingrich’s advocacy of angry, over-the-top rhetoric as a political weapon, has had real impact. This approach, combined with the rise of social media, makes it difficult to talk to each other amid yelling and screaming.
But a deeper pathology, I would argue, has proven to be the relevant Gingrich premise that a concession is a compromise. I’m not sure if he’s ever put it into words, but it’s an exact distillation of his thoughts.
And when compromise is surrender, it’s hard to find a way out of this.
There are basically two ways to enact and implement changes in government policy. One is compromise. Another is domination. Domination is the means by which many European nations govern themselves. In European parliamentary systems, the party or coalition that controls the legislative branch often also controls the executive branch, which facilitates the formulation and implementation of policies. In such a system there are few checks and balances to power. Gingrich, who holds a PhD in European political history, was drawn to the approach both by his training and his temperament.
But the founders, who had also studied the British parliamentary system, had a different idea. The constitution they designed is a compromise-enforcing machine, capable of reigning only in very rare political circumstances. And, as we have seen, trying to operate a constitutional system of checks and balances with congressional dominant thinking is like trying to run a gasoline engine on diesel fuel.
As long as compromise is capitulation, our constitutional system will not work, and the pessimism that permeates much of the country is likely to remain a self-fulfilling prophecy.
