Consensus: the Impossible Goal - Article Example

Consensus: the Impossible Goal The term “culture wars” has become increasingly descriptive of the driving forces in American political life since the 1960s. The clash between what are broadly labeled conservative and progressive values energized events such as the struggle over civil rights in the 1960s American south and the controversy over the Vietnam War. In more recent times it has found expression in debates over such issues as abortion, welfare reform, gay marriage, and the place of Muslims in American society. In terms of influence, there seems to exist a rough parody between both camps, with moderate voters acting as the deciding bloc during periods of significant national debate. Prior to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the United States seemed to be headed towards becoming an increasingly leftist society, with even Republican presidents such as Richard Nixon espousing liberal causes like universal health care. (Conlan) In the late 1970s a counterattack was launched by the Right, however. Perhaps the most visible sign of this resurgence in traditionalism was the emergence of the Moral Majority and similar groups, which generated mass support among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for Republican political candidates. With the presidential election of 1980, it seemed that the direction of American society had been fundamentally changed, with conservatism now the reigning ideology. In actuality it was only single incident in a prolonged see-saw battle, with both conservatives and progressives scoring victories and suffering setbacks in the years following. After 1982 President Reagan was forced to deal with a Democrat dominated Congress, as was his successor, the first President Bush. The back and forth struggle continued with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, followed by the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and most recently with the Obama presidency in a vicious battle with congressional Republicans. All of this reflects the erosion of shared values and a common worldview among the American populace, and the erosive effects that has had on the ability of politicians to build a persuasively powerful consensus for their policies. Aaron Wildavsky noted this trend in a paper he wrote in 1987, summarized below: In a provocative 1987 article, Aaron Wildavsky asserted that culture operates as the fundamental orienting force in the generation of mass public opinion. The meanings and interpersonal associations that inhere in discrete ways of life, he argued, shape the heuristic processes by which politically unsophisticated individuals, in particular, choose what policies and candidates to support. (Gastil, John, Braman, Donald, Kahan, Dan M. and Slovic, Paul) Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush tried to overcome this trend during their presidencies, making strenuous efforts to cross ideological divides and establish commonly agreed upon courses of actions for both the domestic and foreign policy agendas. Domestically, both presidents attempted initiatives on health care reform, while the pair also tried to lead the American people into a unified position of the issue of terrorism. While each achieved a degree of success, both were also plagued with issues resulting from the cultural affect noted by Wildavsky in his 1978 paper. On April 19. 1995, the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma city was bombed by domestic terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. 168 persons, including 19 children, were killed in the blast, which razed the building to the ground. The pair of perpetrators were soon caught and detained. In response, the Clinton administration promised swift justice, and then-Attorney General Janet Reno announced her intent to seek the death penalty against the guilty parties. President Clinton tried to build a national anti-terrorism consensus after these events, but he was perceived by many on the Right as using the tragedy as an excuse to muzzle conservative talk show hosts, who had long been his most strident critics. Clinton didn’t help matters any with a remark he made soon after the bombing, summarized in an article by Krauthammer: “They spread hate,” he charged. “They leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see . . . the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.” His obvious target was conservative talk radio, his nemesis throughout his presidency and the object of sputtering presidential attacks in the past. Conservatives soon responded by accusing Clinton of politicizing the incident for personal gain, and the focus of the national discussion changed from preventing future attacks to whether liberals had a secret plan to crush the voice of America’s conservatives. The chance to build consensus on the issue was lost, with the public alternately supporting or denouncing the president along familiar cultural lines, as Wildavsky had predicted. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers in new York city were demolished by terrorists who flew hijacked planes into them. The Pentagon was also attacked, and another plane commandeered by terrorists crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Public reaction to these events dwarfed even the horror and shock that followed the McVeigh-Nichols bombing. Americans of all political persuasions united in their expressions of patriotism and their calls for the masterminds behind the attack to be brought to justice. Then-president George W. Bush, like Clinton before him, sought to build a national consensus about how to respond to the attacks. In the first several weeks afterward he enjoyed nearly total unanimity. Soon, however, the nation became bitterly divided over the Bush administration’s initiatives in wake of the crisis. Most of the debate centered around the passage of the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001. It greatly expanded federal powers to interrogate, prosecute, and detain suspected enemies of the United States, including American citizens. As Edgar states: At their core, these provisions take aim at the judicial branch of government. They reduce the discretion of the courts in approving or denying search warrants, court orders and subpoenas, thus providing federal agents far more latitude in the use - or misuse - of broadened surveillance powers. Passed in haste, the act was soon attacked by both progressives and civil libertarians, who saw in its details the groundwork for unraveling of basic freedoms and the establishment of a Big Brother-style central government. Numerous challenges to it were initiated, which resulting in key provisions being declared unconstitutional. In 2004 federal judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision that gave the FBI the power to demand access to private employment records without a court’s permission. (Taylor) Bush’s opportunity to build a true national consensus on how to deal with terrorism became a bitter contest over the extent of federal power. As with Clinton, cultural factors determined the battle lines, with residents of of southern and rural states siding largely with the president and urbanites in the northeast and the West Coast opposed to him. The inability to bring the majority of America’s public to consensus isn’t only true of terrorism. When Clinton was elected in 1992 he sought to guarantee all citizens access to health care. Prospects for building an overwhelming consensus were excellent, or so it appeared. As one source says of the national mood at the time: Health care reform returned to the national policy agenda in the early 1990s, opening a window of opportunity for a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system. No other issue dominated the national domestic policy scene and captured the publics attention and focus as much as this one. Public debate over the problems of the U.S. health care system and the kinds of reforms needed to address these problems took the front stage in both the public and the private sectors. (Rushefsky, and Patel iii) Chances for a unified political response to the issue soon deteriorated, however, as the president’s critics and their allies in the medical and pharmaceutical industries sought to crush and efforts at reform. Clinton’s proposals were derided as socialistic, and TV and radio ads painted nightmare scenarios in which seniors were deprived of care by unfeeling government bureaucracies. (Rushefsky, and Patel 210) The campaign to reform health care in the US under Clinton was ultimately defeated. Years later President George W. Bush launched his own efforts to expand health care. In 2004 he launched a campaign to give seniors on Medicare access to prescription drugs through a new federal program. As with Clinton’s efforts a decade before, chances for consensus on this issue seemed quite good. But they were derailed by opposition both from Bush’s own party as well as democratic opponents. As one source relates: Just 25 Republicans ultimately stood up to President Bush and their congressional leaders and voted against the bill, arguing that it creates an unnecessary and extremely costly new universal federal entitlement in an area where the federal governments role should be decreased, not augmented. Democrats, on the other hand, opposed the bill because of the extremely modest privatization provisions it contains, and because they did not want a Republican President to get credit for the new entitlement, which is perceived as being politically popular. ("With Much Arm-twisting, House") Consensus on policy initiatives remains the stated goal of every incoming president. Unfortunately, efforts to achieve it inevitably fail, due to political games and cultural issues. All of this is as Wildavsky predicted in 1987. Until and unless this trend is reversed, the future of American politics will be marked by increasing polarization. Ultimately this may cripple prospects for the passing of all significant legislation, unless Americans learn to look beyond their individual biases and accept that politics is indeed the art of compromise. Whether that will actually occur is anyone’s guess. Works Cited Atkins, Stephen E. Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremists and Extremist Groups /. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Cassel, Elaine. The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2004. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Conlan, Michael F. "Volume Rx Buys Wont Keep Medicare Costs Down, House Told." Drug Topics 5 Mar. 2001: 30. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Edgar, Timothy H. "Watch out America, the White House Is Seeking to Expand the Patriot Act." The Crisis Nov.-Dec. 2003: 16+. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Jones, L.R. "Aaron Wildavsky: A Man and Scholar for All Seasons." Public Administration Review 55.1 (1995): 3-16. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. "Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act; FBI Cant Demand Company Files." The Washington Times 30 Sept. 2004: A06. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. OMeara, Kelly Patricia. "Securing the Homeland: The Recent Acts of the Bush Administration and Congress to Organize a Homeland Defense against Terrorism Follow the Same Lines Proposed by the Clinton Administration." Insight on the News 12 Nov. 2001: 14+. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Rushefsky, Mark E., and Kant Patel. Politics, Power & Policy Making: The Case of Health Care Reform in the 1990s. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. "With Much Arm-twisting, House Passes Medicare Drug Bill." Human Events 8 Dec. 2003: 26+. Questia. Web. 25 July 2011. Read More