Destroying The Spectrum: Reimagining U.S. Political Ideology
Henrik5000
People seem to enjoy arguing so much that they often fail to notice when in agreement. There is a peculiar quality to political discussions these days that borders on the comic – Creating opposition for the sake of having opposition. There is a tendency to chalk it up to political polarization, the old ‘my team versus your team,’ but this seems too shallow an explanation. Do people have any clear conception of what their views represent beyond ‘the team’ itself?
Something more peculiar is happening in America that can’t be explained by political sorting within the ideological left and right. It is something closer to scattered tribalism and social conformity likely indicative of a highly ambiguous cultural environment. The modern person is constantly bombarded with information regarding a multitude of complex issues. So even if people today are more concerned with specific policies than a political party’s performance, they couldn’t possibly have a properly informed view regarding every issue in debate.
Yet, in a sociopolitical environment mired by the rise of identity politics and a Trump presidency, political participation is aggressively encouraged if not dogmatically demanded. This makes it impossible for people with an inhuman amount of partial information and a variety of confused perspectives to effectively fit into a political spectrum dominated by the “duopoly” of Republicans and Democrats.
According to the PRRI 2016 American Values Survey, 61% of Americans believe that the Democratic and Republican parties no longer represent their values. This sentiment is echoed in a number of other studies, as a general lack of trust for government and a growing sense of powerlessness among people in democracies all over the world. This makes the phenomenon of political polarization in the U.S. all the more fascinating, although it could be easily summed up as pragmatism – effective participation in the system requires picking a team.
The observable instability of political parties around the advent of a Trump Presidency – and likely earlier – is a stark reflection of uncertainty. It seems the ideological landscape is shifting so unpredictably that politicians are constantly winging their campaign strategies in mostly vain attempts to connect with voters.
This ideological shifting is perhaps best exemplified by 2019 Pew Research data showing that self-described independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. As Democrats move decidedly more liberal – likely due to an “ideological tilt” in academia – the more moderate or conservative among them are bound to feel less comfortable. In contrast, the Republican party has become noticeably less conservative which likely leaves Republicans even more confused as to the direction of the party.
The pressure of tribalism comes out best in the same Pew Research data. Despite the smoke and panic within and around the two parties, the majority of those self-described independents lean either Republican or Democrat. With so many left feeling disillusioned by their political parties – especially after the 2016 and 2020 elections – it’s probably safe to say that many people are identifying themselves with one party or another while ideologically fitting more and more as an independent. Some might argue that this is just typical political sorting, but the perplexing qualities of today’s social world don’t seem to fit neatly into standard political theory.
The outcome of the 2020 election provides a few examples to mull over. Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, and Mississippi, historically “red” states often comically satirized for their conservative traditionalism, all successfully voted in legalization or medical-use marijuana initiatives. In a similar vein the republican state of Georgia certified a Biden win, albeit by a small margin. This is perhaps strong evidence of the diminishing Republican conservatism reflected in the recent polling.
Despite the strong liberal lean, Democrats don’t seem to be championing traditional liberal issues. California voted in favor of Proposition 22, a law written and funded by billion-dollar tech companies like Uber and Lyft. Yet, the state voted down the local rent control initiative Proposition 21. Anyone could be forgiven if they expected different results from a state as liberal as California. As Democrats accept a noticeable increase of contributions from big oil as well as overwhelming support from Silicon Valley, liberals in the Democratic camp can no longer hold onto any semblance of an anti-elitist platform.
There is so much confusion and muddled tribalism that principles, values and by extension related policy issues are being neglected. What people need is a kind of social cohesion, an ideological roadmap not only to help guide their day-to-day lives, but also to make them feel optimistic about the future of their culture and society. Perhaps this is woefully lacking within the cultural fabric of the U.S.
A 2020 Harvard Youth Poll finds that young people are “experiencing more anxiety and less calm,” but also finds more social cohesion across party affiliation on issues like healthcare and race relations. People want change and direction grounded in real-world policy and it wouldn’t be far-fetched to think the younger generations would want to correct the dysfunction they’ve witnessed in the politics of recent years.
Is it possible that the old ‘evil corporations’ trope hasn’t yet caught up with the modern liberal to appropriately include Silicon Valley or big tech? This could explain why so many Democrats are rather accepting of social media platforms fact-checking and flagging posts. Are Democrats unable to understand the danger of big tech filtering the information users see? Are Democrats in practice less liberal than they claim? Or should there ultimately be a general reframing of what it fundamentally means to be liberal?
Imagine, again, the odd phenomenon of two people arguing despite largely being in agreement. A 2018 Pew Research study found overwhelming bipartisan support for increased, broad gun control initiatives like “background checks for private sales and at gun shows.” Any American can attest to how easily the gun control debate devolves into a game of semantics – amateur lawyers regurgitating definitions and details despite being woefully ignorant of their larger contexts and legal implications. It likely often remains plain to any objective witness that both arguments have more or less confused themselves into thinking they are opposed.
Perhaps this is also illustrated well in the almost spontaneously arising labels or identities attached to a movement like “the proud boys” or “anti-racists.” Even within their respective contexts these labels are ideologically allusive. There is no underpinning of larger cohesive values or principles, only a mishmash of social theory and self-righteousness that can only ever fit people the way an untailored, cheap suit would. Yet despite rejecting the labels for themselves, they’ll use ‘right versus left’ language – “libtards” or “alt-right” – to condemn one another.
Tribalism isn’t pushing people into the ‘Right or Left.’ This ideological dichotomy seems to exist in the minds of most people only as a foggy dream from the night before, yet they still cling to it as a matter of habit or practical necessity. Our collective potential to misunderstand one another is exacerbated by this confusion – the reason why liberal activists are decried as “socialists” and Trump supporters as “racists.”
People today are by-in-large more sophisticated in their approach to politics, however, seem to understand less where they stand in the arena. They are making enemies out of those who need not be, and friends out of those who don’t have their best interests at heart. Instead of going with the direction of an erratically blowing wind, U.S. political parties should be filling the gaps to reframe political thinking and lead the way on principled platforms.
It’s not unreasonable to assume that more people may choose to reluctantly pick a team out of a nagging desire for some kind of change as it seems many Trump voters did in the 2016 election. Until the subtle complexities of today’s issues can fit under the umbrella of cohesive values and principles this Liberal versus Conservative, Democrat versus Republican framework will likely continue to divide people along incoherent lines.
