A Pilgrim’s Digression

I’ve mentioned before, probably in my essay “I was Mr. Gray,” that in 1990-1991, I had a High School AP Poli-Sci teacher named Woodrow Wilson, who ironically happened to be a Conservative. Our textbook was written by James Q. Wilson, a Professor at Pepperdine. I remember this so distinctly because my teacher, Mr. Wilson, thought this other Mr. Wilson was such a brilliant man, he made a point of emphasizing what a great textbook we were using. I never had any other teacher in High School who made such a big deal about a textbook author before. As it turned out, both Mr. Wilsons had a tremendous impact on my own blooming interest in politics.

James Q. Wilson has written an essay for Commentary titled How Divided Are We?, and it is a good read, up until the last paragraph. In the last paragraph, Wilson’s unstated thesis is made explicit: Democrats/Liberals need to find a way past their dislike of George Bush and their paranoia concerning Republicans in general, because “A divided America encourages our enemies, disheartens our allies, and saps our resolve.”

Wilson does not specifically say that Democrats/Liberals are to blame for this division. He tries to maintain a balanced perspective on the polarization of the nation by citing both Conservative and Liberal stereotypes, in which “the other side” is destroying America.

However, if Wilson deeply believes in the war in Iraq and the War on Terror (he does); and if he also believes that “division” harms that effort (he does); then one must conclude that he believes opponents of the President’s policies are those primarily responsible for that destructive division.

Overall, Wilson’s article is a deeply meditated analysis of the current political scene, with references to other periods in U.S. history when the nation has been passionately, sometimes violently, divided. Unfortunately, Wilson takes the conservative (small “c”) position that division is bad.

This is a position I often find myself falling into out of habit. I have a tendency to think that if people aren’t agreeing, whether the conflict be a small or great matter, this disagreement is somehow unhealthy. On the one hand, disagreement does become unhealthy when coupled with a poisonous draught of suspicion and mistrust, not to mention violence. Thankfully, we aren’t at the point of violence between Republicans and Democrats. On the other hand, I believe being able to discern a clear distinction between political parties and ideology is a good thing.

Wilson’s point is that we have gone beyond disagreement into the realm of outright antagonism and mistrust. John Kerry cannot be wrong; he must be proven an absolute scoundrel. And the same is true for George Bush, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and anyone else one views as an ideological adversary.

Wilson attributes the rise of what he calls “incivility” in our politics to several factors. First, he cites both the 24 hour news cycle and the competativeness of the news business. Since CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are in intense competition with each other, the temptation to which all the networks succumb is to present aversarial opinion programs that depict politics as a boxing match, rather than as a boring session of horse trading. Also, with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the eighties, all media has moved to the extremes of the ideological spectrum, again because that is where the ratings are.

Says Wilson, “At one time, our culture was only weakly affected by the media because news organizations had only a few points of access to us and were largely moderate and audience-maximizing enterprises. Today the media have many lines of access, and reflect both the maximization of controversy and the cultivation of niche markets. Once the media talked to us; now they shout at us.”

On both sides, extremist views have filtered into mainstream political discourse through media saturation and special interest groups, whether those groups be anti-war or pro-life. Despite claims to the contrary by advocates for those groups, most Americans do not hew to such extremes, but you would not guess that from the way our media treats issues today.

And as Wilson asks, is the extremism of the media filtering down to ordinary people? Wilson says yes, pointing to party affiliation as a sign of increased polarization. Today, it is rare for a Republican to dislike George W. Bush, and just as rare for a Democrat to like him. Party affiliation exercises tremendous influence not only on how people vote, but on what they say they believe.

It has become almost a trope of modern political campaigning to deplore “America Divided.” George Bush promised to be a uniter, rather than a divider, when he ran for office in 2000, and I am sure when he stews on his failure to keep that promise, he blames his opponents for not “uniting” with him.

My question is, if division is such an evil, pernicious contaminant in our political and cultural atmosphere, what can be done about it? Very little. Probably nothing. The media certainly isn’t going to change its oppositional model of providing commentary, rather than news, as long as that model works. Talk radio is not going to change its model, as long as its audience prefers harsh attacks and low comedy to NPR-style analysis.

One might look for a “man on a white horse” to change the divisive culture of Washington, but I wouldn’t look too hard for him. George W. Bush is proof that Washington has a way of making natives of men who go to that city in hopes of changing its culture.

In the end, Wilson’s own historical analogies suggest that these periods of division come and go, sometimes taking decades for our collective political “body” to cleanse itself of this poison.  The ill effects of disunity are undeniable, however. The Civil War and Jim Crowe eras were all borne of deep political and cultural division within the country. Does our disunity over the Iraq War and War on Terror amount to such an evil, as Wilson suggests?

“Polarization is a force that can defeat us,” Wilson concludes. Quite frankly, if we lose in Iraq, it will have very little to do with what liberals believe and say in this country. It will have everything to do with the Iraqi historical and cultural forces aligned against us. The Bush Administration will share some blame, as well, for decisions it has made in regards to Iraq. Similarly, if the Bush presidency comes to an end with Bin Laden still on the loose after eight years, and Iraq still in disarray, and the War on Terror continuing indefinitely, the blame must fall on the President and no one else.

“Polarization,” as Wilson calls it, is merely a scapegoat for Conservatives who wish the blame for their failures to fall on their opponents. Just as in Vietnam, it will be the anti-war movement who is blamed for “losing the war,” not the military and political proponents of that war who were chiefly responsible for advancing it. It’s a shame that an otherwise thoughtful piece by James Q. Wilson should degenerate into just another attack on those who oppose the President’s policies.