何毓琦的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/何毓琦 哈佛(1961-2001) 清华(2001-date)

博文

[转载]The Messy Political History of the US

已有 6266 次阅读 2015-12-21 05:42 |系统分类:海外观察|文章来源:转载

For new readers and those who request to be “好友 good friends” ,  please read my 公告first.

 

Today’s Sunday New York Times (12/20/2105) carried an article which I thought represents the title of this blog. It was fascinating reading. Since NYT is blocked in China, I thought the readers of ScienceNet might enjoy reading it. The article has nothing to do with China, or US-China relation, or anything offensive. The article is reproduced below. It is essentially a summary of US domestic politics from founding to present day. Chinese reader may not understand or comprehend everything in it and may  takes everal readings to appreciate it (even after  living continuously in the US for65 years, I found out thing I did not know in the article). But in my opinion, it is insightful and explains the current gridlock  and government dysfunction in theUS - well worth digesting it slowly  or as a  source for further learning.

Political Party Meltdown

The strategists who wanted greater ideological
purity may have gotten more than they bargained for.

By KEVIN BAKER DEC. 19, 2015

 

DURINGthe tumultuous wartime summer of 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt  fielded an incredible proposal. His Republican opponent from  1940, Wendell Willkie,would quit his party and join the president in a new, liberal coalition.

Both men had grown deeply frustrated with the conservative factions  of their own parties. The more isolationist Republican “Old Guard” had just blocked Willkie’s bid to win his party’s nomination again, and scoffed in particular at his idea for a postwar “world government.” A coalition, Roosevelt told a close adviser, would enable the Democrats “to get rid of its reactionary elements in the South, and to attract to it the liberals in the Republican Party,” while “leaving the conservatives in both parties to join together as they see fit.”

Roosevelt elaborated: “We ought to have two real parties —  one liberal and the other conservative. As it is now, each party is split by dissenters.”

He was wrong. The idea of two ideologically consistent, European-style parties that offer voters clear-cut choices may sound logical. But our federal government has always worked best when our major parties were instead messy, exasperating  contradictions, sprawled across many different regions. In fact, that’s almost the only time our government has ever functioned well.

The former opponents’ dreams of one big liberal party were soon  dashed by bothmen’s deaths, but what Roosevelt and Willkie wanted has largely come to pass.The Republican Party has shifted hard to the right on virtually every issue and moved its base to the South. The Democrats remain more ideologically diverse,but are  increasingly isolated along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus a few sections of the Midwest and the Prairie States.

The fruits of this realignment were on display last week, in the latest Republican debate. The candidates focused solely on a serious foreign threat, much likeRoosevelt and Willkie’s 1940 race, which was combative but civil. By contrast, the Republicans’ nine  top candidates offered almost nothing beyond ceaseless vituperation of President Obama and the leading Democratic candidate, HillaryClinton.

The debate was billed as a battle royal between the party’s  rebels and its establishment, but in fact they differed very little in their views. Previous debates on domestic issues have revealed even greater ideological consistency,no matter who “wins” them. The debates have drawn some terrific television ratings, but they rarely seem to affect the nominating contest itself much, and how could they? The candidates agree on almost everything.

Thistime around, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was the most adamant advocate of the Republican consensus when he called the president of the United States a“feckless  weakling” and asserted that both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton had“betrayed the  American people.”

It is impossible to imagine any of these candidates working hand in  hand with a Democratic administration in the best interests of America. It would be tempting to say that all this marks a new low in the annals of our democracy, save for the fact that this is how it has functioned, or failed to function,for much of its existence.

Political analysts attribute our current stalemate to a number of likely  factors: the corrupting influence of big money; the fall of the old party bosses and the advent of primaries; and now the rise of a social media that is centered on forming virtual communities of like-minded people. All true,  but the heart ofthe matter is this: The system is not supposed to work.

With a few notable exceptions, the men who drafted the American  Constitution were much more concerned about the excesses of power than getting  things done. They threaded it with checks and balances that made it easy for a determined opposition to stop any agenda. They considered parties to be an  inherent evil.

Once they stepped down from the picture frame and walked into the hurly-burly of actual political life, though, the founding fathers spent much of their time hiring professional slanderers to accuse one another of treason, malfeasance and perversion.

Nor did they stop at libel. When their dominance was threatened,  John Adams and his Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to limit immigration and made malicious criticism of the president a felony. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans responded with the doctrine of“nullification, ” claiming the right of the states to simply ignore any national laws they thought infringed on their sovereignty.

The political was always personal and often dangerous. Election Days  regularly turned to violence and shivaree; one such extravaganza in Baltimore may have cost Edgar Allan Poe his life. (One theory holds that he was kidnapped and plied with  liquor by a political faction that wanted him to vote again and again as  a “repeater.”) Debate was vigorous, but unilluminating. The Federalist congressman  RogerGriswold of Connecticut once attacked his Republican colleague, Matthew Lyon ofVermont, with a wooden cane, beating him about the head on the floor of theHouse. Lyon, later jailed under the Sedition Act, defended himself by grabbinga pair of iron tongs out of the fireplace.

Politiciansof the highest rank — DeWitt Clinton, Sam Houston, Andrew Jackson —  routinelyfought duels, and sometimes murdered one another. In the most infamous incident, as any fan of the Broadway show “Hamilton” can tell you, Aaron Burr,then the  sitting vice president (spoiler alert) shot and killed AlexanderHamilton, one of the architects of our liberty.

Things tended to get done only when one party, like the Federalists or the Whigs,  wasdriven almost entirely out of government — and then what was done created new resentments and stalemates. Hamilton and the Federalists established a centralbank in  1791, only to see James Madison and the Republicans let its charter expire in 1811, throwing the country into financial turmoil. Madison re-established  a central bank five years later, only to see Jackson and his Democrats let its charter expire again, 20 years later, setting off a horrific depression.

Political leaders added huge sections of land to the Union, by purchase  or conquest, onlyto see slave owners and yeoman farmers bitterly contest control over  them. TheConstitution had been written to accommodate slavery, but slavery further bolstered the gridlock already written into the system.

YoungAmerica was a nation possessed of immense energies but no compass, always threatening to sail off into chaos. Parties made coalitions across regions, but these always proved unstable, or ineffectual. The Compromise of 1850 brought a shaky  and troubled peace on slavery for all of four years. Soon after, a Democratic congressman, Preston Brooks of South Carolina, famously surprised a Republican senator, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, at his desk in the Senate chamber, and caned him senseless. Northern abolitionists funded John Brown’sattempt  to start a slave rebellion at Harpers Ferry, Va., in 1859; the same year, South Carolina congressmen and their state’s governor seriously considered a plot to seize control of the Capitol by force, if the Republican representative John Sherman, of Ohio, was elected speaker of the House.

All this was followed by the ultimate party deadlock: In two wrenching  conventionsin 1860, the Democratic Party split and offered two regional candidates for president. This ensured the election of Abraham Lincoln, and ushered in theCivil War,  which killed not just some political party but one in every 40 Americans.

 

The oldsystem began to change only after the war with the rise of the Populists, a genuine people’s movement that challenged single-party dominance in  DemocraticTexas and the rest of the South — and in Kansas, Nebraska and other Republican strongholds on the Great Plains. The Populists were eventually lured into the  DemocraticParty by William Jennings Bryan, but the Progressive movement soon gave  the Republicans their own house radicals.

Both major parties now had their own liberal and conservative wings,  creating what were in effect four major parties and a national legislature full of ever-shifting coalitions,  usually across party lines.

Thisarrangement defied pretty much every civics textbook, every political theorist’s idea of how government should function. It was also when ou rnational government began to work. From roughly 1900 to 1990, when this“four-party system” was in existence, the United States emerged as the world’s eading power and reached its economic zenith. We fought and won two world wars and the Cold War; built a social welfare state; established a stable national banking system; won the vote, and then equal rights for women,African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans; rebuilt Europe;  constructed aformidable national infrastructure; instituted environmental safeguards andpreserved millions of miles of wilderness; and generally created the freest,most prosperous, major multicultural nation the world has ever seen.

Plenty of other factors contributed to all these achievements, of course,  but the fluid new party system in Washington accommodated and facilitated the  country’sgrowth as it never had before. The constantly shifting coalitions in Washington forced a certain productive civility into our politics. You were much less apt to hit members of the opposition with a cane, or a fire iron — or to shoot them in Weehawken — when you knew you might need them to help get your bill passed next week.

THE fickle nature of these Congresses often bothered presidents,  but the cannier ones quickly learned how to use such shifting alliances to their advantage. Strange bedfellows continued to be the rule after Roosevelt and Willkie. Both President Harry S. Truman and President Dwight D. Eisenhower recruited support from internationalists in each other’s parties. Eisenhower also built the largestpublic works  program — the Interstate highway system — in history. President John F. Kennedy  slashed taxes and rooted out corruption in labor unions.Republicans joined Northern  Democrats in passing Lyndon B. Johnson’s landmarks civil rights legislation.  President Richard M. Nixon gave us the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, went to China, and proposed a guaranteed national income,while Ronald Reagan got Southern Democrats to back his tax policies and military buildup.

Congressional investigations were often bipartisan, timely and incredibly effective.  In the1960s, committees looking into allegations raised in books — books! —such as Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at AnySpeed,”  produced not only concrete recommendations but also lifesaving actions within a few short years.

Ofcourse, the old cross-party crowd was not always wise.  Both parties reached across the aisle to foment the original “Red Scare” after World War I, slammed shut the golden door of immigration in 1924, ran McCarthyite witch hunts against gay people and suspected Communists in the 1950s, and generally supported a host of racist and sexist policies. Our involvement in Vietnam,carried  forward by four presidents, two Republicans and two Democrats, was a whopping, bipartisan failure.

Yet if it was imperfect, this era of practical democracy created or enabled  so much of what we think of as the best in America today. It ended in the 1990s, as Republican political leaders and strategists like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove deliberately emphasized party differences. They encouraged their candidates to adopt language that referred to the opposition as un-American and maneuvered  to suppress Democratic turnout or render it ineffectual.

They have succeeded, perhaps a little better than they intended.  Voter turnout inthe 2014 midterm was the lowest since the end of World War II — and  general disgust and disillusionment with the entire political system  has spawned the likes of the Tea Party, and now the wretched candidacy  of Donald J. Trump.

Our elections are once again fought out in ways that seek to demonize  theopposition. Where once unscrupulous demagogues used to try to draw voters tothe  polls by invoking secret plots by the Masons, or the pope, to take overAmerica, we now   find ourselves right back in the demon-haunted world, delugedwith conspiracy  theories about Shariah law, Planned Parenthood or Benghazi.It’s no longer enough, for  instance, to criticize President Obama’s policy on Syria and the Islamic State.  Instead, as nearly every Republican candidate asserted in last week’s debate,  he doesn’t want America to lead or be strong.

Such rhetoric is, for starters, horribly dangerous. It is not far removed  from the sort of invective Joe McCarthy used to fling around — or the sort that was flung at Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, before his assassination in1995. But it makes one wonder, as well: After such bile, what cooperation?

We are divorced — physically as well as psychologically separated from one another —and in this state we can hardly expect to work together. The bottomless cant ofthe Republican primary field can exist because there is no need to temper it.If nothing changes, this current division is likely to play out in the same way party politics used to, back  in the 18th and 19th centuries, with one party simply crushing the other into  extinction —  or in a protracted, exasperating stalemate.  It almost  destroyed our nation then, and we cannot afford it now.

It maybe that what we are witnessing, in the proliferation of all these wildly disparate, anti-establishment uprisings from the likes of the Tea Party,  the Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements, Bernie Sanders’s democratic socialist campaign, and even Mr. Trump’s revolting circus, is a revival of that now much-abused word “populism.”  Many of these movements are rough-edged; some canbe downright ugly. It is difficult to see the reincarnation of the original populism in the New York born-and-bred Mr. Trump, huckster and privileged heir to a real-estate fortune.

But it may be true that all of these varied rebellions herald the beginning  of a sea change in our politics, one that swells across the narrow lines of party andplace. What the adherents of all these fledgling movements have in common is the growing belief that the establishment narrative of America no longer makes any sense.

Thepopulists of the 1880s and ’90s could no longer believe in a system that seemed utterly corrupted, that kept them from realizing a decent return on their harvests no matter how hard they worked and foreclosed on their farms ruthlessly. But the reality of their daily lives led them to see beyond political prejudice and the regional cultures that they had been taught to believe in their whole lives. They made common cause with people they had despised.

Today’sAmericans are beginning to reject establishment narratives that accept what feels like permanent economic stagnation and foreign threats. They will not always be right, these new populists, and the solutions they advocate may be worse than the original problems. They may be prey for demagogues and falsegods. But  they have — some of them anyway — started to break out of the narrow,ideological  spaces they had previously been confined in and may have taken a first, wrenching step toward restoring practical democracy.

Kevin Baker is an essayist andthe author, most recently, of the historical novel “The Big Crowd”; he is atwork on a book about American history between the world wars.

 




http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-944777.html

上一篇:The Joy of Teaching (3)
下一篇:One Giant Leap for Mankind
收藏 分享 举报

1 张士伟

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (2 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2017-9-20 11:57

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社

返回顶部