The Times
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 10 2000
Opinion
How a tidal wave of prosperity has failed to mend the rifts in US society
By JOHN PODHORETZ
How will it be possible for the next President of the US, whoever he may be, to govern this enormous and complex country when it is more divided along ideological and partisan lines than it has ever been? It’s not just that Al Gore and George W. Bush split the popular vote almost exactly down the middle. It’s that Gore ran as an activist liberal while Bush ran as a moderate conservative. The same is true in the legislative branch of the US Government. The Senate is now almost evenly divided between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, as is the House of Representatives.
The American political system has become ideologically polarised at a moment when there seems to be no cause for ideological polarisation. For by most measures, America is in better shape than it has ever been before - crime low, deficits gone, economic growth steady, sole superpower. There is consensus, at least rhetorically, on preventing the expansion of the federal Government, on the need for some sort of tax cut, and on an internationalist foreign policy.
The 2000 election was not about the country’s future but about small policy matters like a prescription-drug benefit and the federal Government’s approach to public education. Even the talk of “saving” the national old-age pension system we call “social security” is purely speculative, since it doesn’t face a budgeting crisis until 2015.
So what accounts for the ideological gulf in the electorate? First, it’s important to remember that the electorate and the American people as a whole are not the same. There are some 200 million American citizens of voting age, and only half voted in this election.
One can assume that the non-voting population are perfectly content with the way things are. Though it has become a common practice here to lament their lack of participation, those 100 million non-voters are the truest indicators of American stability and comfort. They lead their lives indifferent to politics, which is the greatest gift any country has ever given its people.
The 100 million voters are a different matter entirely. Aside from those who go to the polls out of civic duty, the voting population can indeed be divided into two camps: those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in government and those who wish to be protected from government encroachment.
The Democratic Party is the party of government in every conceivable way. It believes in centralised power to help people - and it represents those who make their living from the spending that arises from that philosophy. Labour unions have been dying out in the private sector, but the number of public sector unionised workers has exploded.
Something like 25 million people now work directly or indirectly for government. Their livelihoods, their rises, their possibilities for advancement all depend on the continuing flow of federal, state and local dollars. Black Americans vote something like 90 per cent Democratic not only because the party advances civil rights legislation and backs affirmative action, but because blacks are disproportionately likely to be employed by government.
America’s 35 million senior citizens, who might be expected to be conservative by definition, tend to vote Democratic because they too have a financial stake in the matter. Many depend entirely on the national pension system for their incomes, and they believe the Democrats are more committed to the system than the Republicans.So between 40 and 50 million Americans have a financial stake in the continuance of Big Government. That’s the Democratic vote.
Another huge chunk of voters are united by a distrust, contempt or fear of Big Government. More affluent Americans are horrified by how much of their pay goes directly to government. Small business owners and gun owners feel harassed by regulations. Others are appalled by the activist conduct of the courts, which are, largely, run by unelected members, appointed by elected officials.
The one issue that used to cut across the divide was foreign policy. Fear of the Soviet Union and a belief in American power was so important that members of the Big Government party would cross the lines to vote for Republicans who more closely reflected their feelings. And the anti-government people always supported huge government spending when it went on the military.
Now they have almost nothing in common. And so America finds itself in bitter partisan division over vitally important matters at a time of unparalleled domestic comity. It would take the wisdom of a Solomon to know how to govern right now. Does Bush or Gore look like a Solomon to you?
The author is a columnist for the New York Post.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,33318,00.html
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 10 2000
Opinion
How a tidal wave of prosperity has failed to mend the rifts in US society
By JOHN PODHORETZ
How will it be possible for the next President of the US, whoever he may be, to govern this enormous and complex country when it is more divided along ideological and partisan lines than it has ever been? It’s not just that Al Gore and George W. Bush split the popular vote almost exactly down the middle. It’s that Gore ran as an activist liberal while Bush ran as a moderate conservative. The same is true in the legislative branch of the US Government. The Senate is now almost evenly divided between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, as is the House of Representatives.
The American political system has become ideologically polarised at a moment when there seems to be no cause for ideological polarisation. For by most measures, America is in better shape than it has ever been before - crime low, deficits gone, economic growth steady, sole superpower. There is consensus, at least rhetorically, on preventing the expansion of the federal Government, on the need for some sort of tax cut, and on an internationalist foreign policy.
The 2000 election was not about the country’s future but about small policy matters like a prescription-drug benefit and the federal Government’s approach to public education. Even the talk of “saving” the national old-age pension system we call “social security” is purely speculative, since it doesn’t face a budgeting crisis until 2015.
So what accounts for the ideological gulf in the electorate? First, it’s important to remember that the electorate and the American people as a whole are not the same. There are some 200 million American citizens of voting age, and only half voted in this election.
One can assume that the non-voting population are perfectly content with the way things are. Though it has become a common practice here to lament their lack of participation, those 100 million non-voters are the truest indicators of American stability and comfort. They lead their lives indifferent to politics, which is the greatest gift any country has ever given its people.
The 100 million voters are a different matter entirely. Aside from those who go to the polls out of civic duty, the voting population can indeed be divided into two camps: those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in government and those who wish to be protected from government encroachment.
The Democratic Party is the party of government in every conceivable way. It believes in centralised power to help people - and it represents those who make their living from the spending that arises from that philosophy. Labour unions have been dying out in the private sector, but the number of public sector unionised workers has exploded.
Something like 25 million people now work directly or indirectly for government. Their livelihoods, their rises, their possibilities for advancement all depend on the continuing flow of federal, state and local dollars. Black Americans vote something like 90 per cent Democratic not only because the party advances civil rights legislation and backs affirmative action, but because blacks are disproportionately likely to be employed by government.
America’s 35 million senior citizens, who might be expected to be conservative by definition, tend to vote Democratic because they too have a financial stake in the matter. Many depend entirely on the national pension system for their incomes, and they believe the Democrats are more committed to the system than the Republicans.So between 40 and 50 million Americans have a financial stake in the continuance of Big Government. That’s the Democratic vote.
Another huge chunk of voters are united by a distrust, contempt or fear of Big Government. More affluent Americans are horrified by how much of their pay goes directly to government. Small business owners and gun owners feel harassed by regulations. Others are appalled by the activist conduct of the courts, which are, largely, run by unelected members, appointed by elected officials.
The one issue that used to cut across the divide was foreign policy. Fear of the Soviet Union and a belief in American power was so important that members of the Big Government party would cross the lines to vote for Republicans who more closely reflected their feelings. And the anti-government people always supported huge government spending when it went on the military.
Now they have almost nothing in common. And so America finds itself in bitter partisan division over vitally important matters at a time of unparalleled domestic comity. It would take the wisdom of a Solomon to know how to govern right now. Does Bush or Gore look like a Solomon to you?
The author is a columnist for the New York Post.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,33318,00.html