“(Income inequality) seems to be worst in cities run by Democrats … states run by Democrats and countries currently run by Democrats,” Rand Paul said in the Nov. 10 Fox Business debate. “The bottom line is, if you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor.”
Of all the babbling in this debate, Rand Paul’s statement – which has since been proven false – made me think more than anything else. This “I’m right because they’re wrong” logic is absolutely terrifying to me. And while Paul’s comments were mostly forgotten amidst the many claims and promises made Tuesday night, they illuminate why many people are disillusioned with the political system, and why I struggle to take politicians seriously.
I don’t think politicians sincerely care about the people they serve. Now, there are always a few exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, politicians don’t have any incentive to be truly altruistic and create positive change.
Take this quote from Nancy Pelosi in a recent Politico story: “In some respects, the Tea Party empowers us … our unity empowers us, first and foremost. But they give more leverage to our votes by their ideological stance.”
Legislating sounds like a game to her. Opponents are just another piece on the chess board, and voters are leverage she can use to meet political ends. There’s no mention of policy change or lawmaking in that quote, and there’s seldom a mention of legislation at all in the article. There’s more talk of John Boehner, Paul Ryan and GOP strategy than there is about bills and laws.
Really, I can’t blame her or any other politician for doing what it takes to keep a job, but it doesn’t make the issue any less frustrating. Partisanship is arguably as strong as it has ever been, and it serves politicians more than anyone else. It’s in their best interest to maintain the status quo, sling mud at their opponents and rally their supporters by vilifying the other party. This system doesn’t entice the government – and by extension, our country – to be innovative at all.
Yet, maintaining gridlock and promoting partisanship is a savvy move for politicians looking out for their personal interests, and there’s historical precedent for it.
In the the 19th century – the most divided period in United States’ history – the Whig party and Democratic party voted against one another virtually on principle. There was no room for agreement, and politics were divided almost exclusively by geographic (read: party) lines. When the Whig Party collapsed shortly before the Civil War, Democrats enjoyed a brief period of political domination with little to no opposition. With no opposition, one would think the southern Democrats would dominate the country and pass laws at will. But that’s not what happened.
Instead, the end of the Whigs took the air out of the Democrat balloon. The Democrats had defined themselves as the party that opposed the Whigs – in fact, the Whig Party developed almost exclusively to oppose Democrats. Without opposition to fight, the Democratic Party had lost its identity and became as ineffective and directionless as it had ever been.
This symbiotic relationship is an inherent part of a two-party system. Parties are at their strongest when they have a clear enemy to rally their members against. When you have a clear enemy, it makes Rand Paul’s circular “I’m right because they’re wrong” reasoning seem like intelligent discourse to a large portion of the voting population. It perpetuates the breakdown in well-reasoned dialogue that dominates national politics.
And still, I can’t put blame solely on politicians on either side of the aisle. Voters elect candidates to office. Voters get caught up in the firestorm of partisanship and keep the system in motion. Most importantly, voters make up the political action committees that fund and motivate candidates and their parties.
It’s a completely broken system, but there’s nowhere to seriously place the blame for the devolution of our government. Even worse, no one with significant bureaucratic power has any motivation to change the system. After all, why step out of line when you can get re-elected?
Jacob Sevening can be reached at seve8586@stthomas.edu.
Mr. Sevening: Perhaps you are right about some, maybe even most politicians. They are in it for the power, the prestige, and the money that they have voted for themselves. However, they are also elected by the voters of this country, and many if not most of the voters are politically and governmentally ignorant, and are not being taught about the background and the needs of the country, and in that, I believe our educational system bears much of the blame. Few if any know of what the Constitution says. They seem to be only interested and aware of what they can get from the government as promised by the political party they support. Someone once said that we get the government we deserve, and that seems to be more and more prevalent as time passes.