100 years ago, the deadly and global conflict now known as the First World War was just barely getting started. In northeastern France, one of the most dramatic military stalemates in history had formed, a situation that would lead millions of fighting men to their graves and completely change the way that humans viewed warfare. Only a few months earlier, the citizens of every single major European state had been eagerly anticipating war, unable to wait for the chance to prove themselves and their great nations. Yet, the First Battle of the Marne, fought near Paris in late 1914, dashed all hopes of this “quick victory”. The next four years would bring death and destruction on a scale unmatched by any previous war. The ultimate results included the destruction of empires, the political rebalancing of the European Continent, and the perfect conditions for the next great war: World War II.
I share this history not only in centennial remembrance of that destructive conflict, but also to draw a parallel to the political warfare being waged in the United States today. Though the contest for control of the United States has resulted in very few deaths, it has become just as vicious in terms of the backstabbing, hatred, hostility and futile battles prevalent in Washington. Furthermore, the ultimate outcome of this war (no matter who, if anyone, wins) will decisively affect our future. In this essay, I hope to draw an accurate picture of the current political deadlock in the United States, and how the competing forces work. Regardless of one’s political affiliation or nationality (after all, your country probably has a similar problem to ours), this essay is meant to describe what is happening in the national capital, not to decide who is right or wrong.
This political deadlock is one of the unfortunate results of America’s two-party system. Whether this political architecture has proved (overall) to be a benefit or a burden to American democracy is unclear; supporters often note that it makes politics “more exciting” and helps maintain a delicate balance, while opponents suggest that the system is divisive and blocks progress. George Washington predicted this outcome and advanced his opinion in his Presidential Farewell Address of 1796. Recognizing the political “domination”, rivalry, and “spirit of revenge” (Washington’s Farewell Address) that result from competing political parties, Washington tried to convince Americans to prevent the formation of such factions.
Our history and current events show that Americans, for better or for worse, did not take Washington’s advice. With the exception of the Era of Good Feelings (roughly 1815-1825 following the War of 1812), virtually every period in our country’s history has had its share of factions and political warfare. One party’s fall gave way to the rise of another. One party’s immediate triumph would later end in disaster, and vice versa. With the exception of the brief undisputed reign of the Democratic-Republican Party (during the Era of Good Feelings), no single political party has completely and unilaterally handled the reins of power. While one party tends to hold a majority of the power, this can and often does reverse at any moment.
As such, we can see where George Washington was going with his warnings: America today finds itself bitterly divided by endless partisan warfare. The media and mass democracy are to politics what the machine gun was to World War I. In that deadly war, when either side launched a charge into no-man’s land, it would often quickly become bogged down and ultimately dispersed. Similar to warfare, when one faction in American politics makes gains, those rarely make a permanent impact on the national political picture.
In 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party made big congressional gains, largely due to public disapproval of George W. Bush. Yet, in 2010 the Republican Party took more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, taking control of that chamber of Congress. More recently (last November), the Republicans kept control of the House and also captured the Senate. During Barack Obama’s time in office, Congress has been a fierce battleground with neither party able to get much done. Frustration with George Bush once aided the Democrats, but now frustration with Barack Obama is strengthening the Republican Party. The tide of public opinion and the performance of sitting officials effectively decides who wins many of the elections, and as a result of ever-changing political conditions, the United States faces a political deadlock. Neither party will be able to permanently achieve its goals if its “doughboys” are being blasted to pieces by political machine guns.
As a result of this stalemate, Americans need to find a way to help their respective parties emerge victorious without crawling out into no-man’s land. A partisan offensive in Washington D.C. by either party can result in short-term gains for one side, but will it settle the matter altogether? Endless political debates in our government are not going to solve our problems, as the 2013 Government Shutdown revealed.
To conclude, the answer to the question of how to end America’s political deadlock cannot simply be answered in this essay: it would require the creation of a complex strategy that I personally don't have. Rather, I hope to demonstrate the futility of using partisan political solutions to make permanent gains for a party/ideology. Perhaps if there were to be political equivalents to the Geneva Conventions on warfare where ad hominem tactics, straw-man attacks and informal fallacies were suppressed while upholding the freedom of speech, then such a solution might be possible. However, for the time being, our politics, as George Washington predicted, have become deadlocked, and the way out will require political tanks rather than soldiers charging and dying at the hands of machine-gunners.
Bibliography:
No comments:
Post a Comment