[Goose]

Division is a tool that corrupt politicians use to control the largest possible segment of the electorate.  The tactic is despicable.  It is very prevalent, but it is not useful to promote solutions for big issues.

CornFed, I don't agree with this analysis. The politician wants to get as much support as possible. Ideally, everybody would agree with the particular policy the politician adopts. The problem arises when that doesn't happen. In the past, politicians genuinely attempted to win over the doubters, and engaged in real discussions with the opposition. That is no longer true.

What has changed is that politicians now attack not the position adopted by the opposition but rather the motives and character of the opposition. It is not what you want to do but why you want to do it that is questioned. You are "bad" and "stupid", not simply wrong in some way. This type of activity has always existed around the margins, but the "political class" and the "media class" simply didn't allow it to be mainstreamed. That is no longer true. Once it becomes personal attack, not logic, it is almost impossible for anybody to change their mind. If you do change your mind (which is difficult enough to do), you are now implicitly admitting you were indeed bad and stupid. Nobody is going to do that. Positions become "locked in" and unchangeable. It leads to gridlock.

In this type of a political climate, compromise is impossible, because to do so is to make a pact with "evil". It becomes morally inadmissible. If you want to see how that goes, look at France in the 1930s.  Better Hitler than Blum. It isn't a matter of politicians being "corrupt". It is rather a matter of them choosing a strategy that is all or nothing and ascribing evil motives to everyone who does not agree with them. It is much easier than trying to convince those people that you are right, or worse still admitting that both points of view have merit and we collectively need to forge a way ahead that works for everybody.

Unfortunately, many politicians (and thus the public) actually believes anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto evil. The current political climate also leads to the naked application of partisan political power in ways that would never, ever, happened before. In the past, both parties knew that having 51% of the vote was not a mandate to do exactly what they wanted and to disregard the opposition. That simply won't work in the long run. Eventually, the opposition will get the 51% and then what? Executive orders are now used by both parties to solve problems in ways they can't pass through congress. DACA and moving military funds to build a border wall are both examples of the same failure. Neither POTUS was willing to go actually lead the people and do the heavy lifting it would take to actually address the real issues and force the congress to act.

The current approach of "moral absolutes" leads to true believers being elected. The current COVID-19 situation at the Federal level is driven by the fact Trump actually believes that his "gut feel" on issues is correct more often than the experts are. That is how he has run his companies. Sometimes it works out he actually was correct and he makes money. Sometimes he wasn't, and the company goes bankrupt. Not quite a viable approach for our nation, but there we are. In case one thinks this is a personal issue with Trump, consider Elon Musk as POTUS. He also believes he is right more often than the experts. So far, he has been. However, I think trusting leadership of a nation to such a person based only on their track record isn't a good bet. The risk/reward curves are just too different.

[Goose]

Division is a tool that corrupt politicians use to control the largest possible segment of the electorate.  The tactic is despicable.  It is very prevalent, but it is not useful to promote solutions for big issues.

CornFed, I don't agree with this analysis. The politician wants to get as much support as possible. Ideally, everybody would agree with the particular policy the politician adopts. The problem arises when that doesn't happen. In the past, politicians genuinely attempted to win over the doubters, and engaged in real discussions with the opposition. That is no longer true.

What has changed is that politicians now attack not the position adopted by the opposition but rather the motives and character of the opposition. It is not what you want to do but why you want to do it that is questioned. You are "bad" and "stupid", not simply wrong in some way. This type of activity has always existed around the margins, but the "political class" and the "media class" simply didn't allow it to be mainstreamed. That is no longer true. Once it becomes personal attack, not logic, it is almost impossible for anybody to change their mind. If you do change your mind (which is difficult enough to do), you are now implicitly admitting you were indeed bad and stupid. Nobody is going to do that. Positions become "locked in" and unchangeable. It leads to gridlock.

In this type of a political climate, compromise is impossible, because to do so is to make a pact with "evil". It becomes morally inadmissible. If you want to see how that goes, look at France in the 1930s.  Better Hitler than Blum. It isn't a matter of politicians being "corrupt". It is rather a matter of them choosing a strategy that is all or nothing and ascribing evil motives to everyone who does not agree with them. It is much easier than trying to convince those people that you are right, or worse still admitting that both points of view have merit and we collectively need to forge a way ahead that works for everybody.

Unfortunately, many politicians (and thus the public) actually believes anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto evil. The current political climate also leads to the naked application of partisan political power in ways that would never, ever, happened before. In the past, both parties knew that having 51% of the vote was not a mandate to do exactly what they wanted and to disregard the opposition. That simply won't work in the long run. Eventually, the opposition will get the 51% and then what? Executive orders are now used by both parties to solve problems in ways they can't pass through congress. DACA and moving military funds to build a border wall are both examples of the same failure. Neither POTUS was willing to go actually lead the people and do the heavy lifting it would take to actually address the real issues and force the congress to act.

The current approach of "moral absolutes" leads to true believers being elected. The current COVID-19 situation at the Federal level is driven by the fact Trump actually believes that his "gut feel" on issues is correct more often than the experts are. That is how he has run his companies. Sometimes it works out he actually was correct and he makes money. Sometimes he wasn't, and the company goes bankrupt. Not quite a viable approach for our nation, but there we are. In case one thinks this is a personal issue with Trump, consider Elon Musk as POTUS. He also believes he is right more often than the experts. So far, he has been. However, I think trusting leadership of a nation to such a person based only on their track record isn't a good bet. The risk/reward curves are just too different.