America’s all-or-nothing political culture is sidelining well-intentioned, pragmatic moderates from the political debate, creating an ever-evolving echo chamber of partisanship that weakens our system.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, theologian Tim Keller highlighted an alarming phenomenon in modern political discourse: the increasing propensity of both political parties to demand total and uncompromising ideological loyalty. As the two parties rapidly polarize, so too do the views to which they demand absolute and unconditional allegiance. As Keller observes, “political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.” This all-or-nothing mentality is poisoning the political well and driving moderates out of mainstream discourse. If left unchecked, the last remnants of sensible moderation in our political systems will eventually be rooted out, leaving bitter ideologues to dominate.
[Trump: ‘The centrist Democratic Party is dead’]
The Kavanaugh controversy is a case in point. One should be allowed — indeed, encouraged — to decry sexism, misogyny, and sexual violence whilst also endorsing such principles as due process and presumed innocence. One should simultaneously lend credence to the available evidence, while giving the benefit of the doubt to survivors who come forward to sincerely share their experiences. But in the all-or-nothing world dominated by caustic tweets and sound-bite political maneuvering, faith in due process and believing victims of sexual assault have been reduced to a simple binary. To subscribe to the “#IBelieveHer” movement increasingly demands that one not only disagree with moderates sympathetic to due process, but discredit and disregard them as illegitimate.
This creates considerable angst for the reasonable, well-intentioned moderate. Where does one go if one is both pro-life and pro-environment? To which party does one donate if one wants both tax cuts and more gun control? For whom does one vote if one believes in the potential of Dreamers but recognizes the need for border security? What if one acknowledges that our criminal justice system discriminates against minorities and the poor, but also that capital punishment is a legitimate exercise of state power?
The answer offered by the puritanical mobs on both sides has simply been to discard moderates due to our “tainted” political beliefs. Moderates are greeted on one side with hate and foolishness, and on the other with ineptitude and intolerance, but on both with rejection. The concept of the “Reagan Democrat” has not only faded into obscurity but has become anathema to a political culture that demands either blood allegiance to party ideology, or else excommunication.
The plight of the moderate lies in having a varied set of political principles, the variance of whose positions disqualifies them from the exclusive cliques that dominate our parties. Political convictions are often packaged in diverse bags, and yet our political culture is oft too eager to standardize and carton individuals into staunchly red or blue boxes. Those that resist the urge to kowtow to group identity are branded as “other” or even “enemy” and dismissed from the conversation.
Indeed, the increased polarization of our system over time defies common sense and ready intuition, both of which would suggest a trend of convergence. The first major political divergence came in the battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists — a battle that later evolved into one between Adams’ Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. However, these polarizations, fraught with animosity as they were, revolved largely around the single issue of constitutional interpretation. It is far easier to understand polarization on a single issue than it is to rationalize the partisan bitterness we experience today, considering the mass of national issues and positions to be taken on them offers greater opportunity for cooperation. More issues are being debated today than were being debated by Adams and Jefferson in 1800, meaning we have more potential common ground to share with our fellow citizens. Yet modern political culture encourages us not to approach these issues with common understanding, but to characterize each as a battle hill on which to make a last stand.
The stronger our view that we alone, in all things, can be right, the further we stray from not only our founding vision but the preservation of our republic. We must view emerging issues, such as the #MeToo movement, as opportunities to coalesce, not ostracize. It is difficult to overstate that Americans, unlike those in other nations, are not bound together by a single race, ethnicity, language, religion, or culture. Instead, we are commonly tethered to the fundamental principles of freedom, equality, justice, and liberty. We may, of course, disagree on the means by which to effectuate these principles and our visions for them. But the moment we accept the modern characterization of moderate Americans as unworthy participants in our political culture, the last, best hope on Earth may have run its course with a human nature too bitter and cruel for it.
Akhil Rajasekar is a sophomore at Princeton University; his academic interests are constitutional theory and national politics. Drew Wegner is a 3L at Harvard Law School; his research focuses on criminal justice reform and public policy.
