Why do Democrats and Republicans have such a hard time talking?
Here's what I see.
Democrats strive to find and follow ideas.
Republicans strive to find and follow leaders.
Democrats like big ideas. They like looking at the way things are and developing an image of what the future could be. They then fixate on that idea, working to vote in people and policies designed to make that idea a reality. This means that Democrats are not very loyal to their leaders unless progress is made towards the unifying idea. The moment it's not or the idea loses political momentum, Democrats have a hard time keeping their caucus together.
Republicans like leaders. They prefer to elect someone based on their character or potential and then let that leader make core decisions almost unilaterally. Republicans generally fall in behind their leaders without much question or challenge to the way that leader is moving unless the pressure in other directions is very strong. The stronger the Republican leader is perceived to be, the less dissent Republican lawmakers show.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats can't understand how Republicans will often follow their leaders right off a political cliff or into a position on an issue that seems ignorant, stupid, or counterproductive even from a conservative point of view. It makes Republicans look unthinking to them. Meanwhile Republicans can't understand, even if they enjoy, how Democrats seem determined not to work together once they get down to business. Democrats love ideas in the abstract, but the more concrete the work on that idea becomes the less they see one another as chasing common cause. This, in turn, makes them less supportive of their own leaders and makes those leaders look weak and often beleaguered by their own party particularly during moments of numeric strength in the legislature.
Democrats try to make the world better by imaging what America could be.
Republicans try to make the world better by imaging what America should be.
The distinction here is subtle but important. Democrats, governed by ideas, try to establish a vision of what the country could be if it placed it's priorities on progressive goals and left behind the things that seem to be holding us back. The problem is that many of these ideas of where the US could be are unproven and uncertain. It is hard to sell to the general public what might be a better way to live. Democrats are usually critical of Republican failure to embrace what seems like a clear path towards improvement.
Republicans look to what has actually worked in the past and what they personally value to determine what America should look like. Change is as much a part of the Republican platform as it is for Democrats, but they prefer to change towards proven policies and traditional values. Republicans are usually automatically critical of movement away from policies or governance in place during times of America's past prosperity.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats see Republicans as mired in limitations, chained to traditions, and blind to the potential of their nation. To a Democrat a Republican is ruled by their fear and refuses to open their eyes to the breadth of options that might allow America to be so much better than it is or ever was. Democrats can, however, get caught up in their ideas and often miss the simple, proven solution right in front of them.
Republicans see Democrats as dreamers - a group who imagines some Utopian world off in the distance they want to chase without heed to the realities of the present or lessons of the past. Because of this, unless the idea presented by their blue counterpart has some grounding in past success, they tend to tune them out and in so doing they often tend to miss some great opportunities that they otherwise might support.
Democrats are concerned mostly about the process.
Republicans are concerned mostly about the product.
To a Democrat, nothing is worth doing if the steps that lead to it are tainted. This is not to say Democrats are immune to corruption or underhanded tactics, but rather that they generally hold a value on the process of getting things done that trumps any product. Morality is not just defined by what is accomplished but by how it is accomplished and the later shouldn't ever take a back seat to the former. Democrats therefore often bicker endlessly about the steps to take in pursuit of their ideals. When combined with the point above, democratic leadership often looks like barely controlled chaos.
Republicans tend to see politics as a series of extremely practical steps taken to achieve a noble ends. This means to the Republican the vast majority of the moral weight of any political action is in product that is being sought. If the ends are moral, just, and good then whatever unpleasant steps that lead to getting there are the acceptable consequence of leadership. This does not mean Republicans never question the morality of the steps they take, but they are less concerned with those questions so long as they lead in a direction they believe to be just.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats often think Republicans are underhanded and dishonest for using politically ruthless methods to get from point A to point B. Republicans answer by pointing out the good they're doing and basically telling Democrats to put their big boy pants on and deal with the realities of political combat. Republicans see Democratic attacks on Republican methods as distraction tactics and technicalities designed to re-frame the issue away from the good that Republicans are doing. In short, Democrats often see Republicans as utilitarian, willing to justify any means by the merit of the ends. Republicans see Democrats as petty, focusing on the details at the expense of the greater good.
Democrats participate in elections they win.
Republicans win elections they participate in.
Democrats and Republicans do not see electoral victory the same way. Democrats see it as more influence of their ideas in the general public, the whole of which generates legislation. They take seriously the idea that they represent both parties after a victory, and while they absolutely seek their own agenda, that agenda tends to be an inclusive one. This is just one more example of how Democrats can look and feel unfocused. They will cross the aisle more readily, produce legislation that is not in line with party goals in order to be consistent with their constituents, and tend to be less willing to be combative. A good example of this behavior is Obama's almost visceral aversion to taking shots at the Republicans. The belief in attempting to represent the whole colored by the ideals of the party prevails. Pure partisanship is seen as an electoral strategy not suitable for governance.
Republicans see elections as a mandate and a referendum on their agenda. Once elected, they are the winners and the other side are the losers. The losers do not set policy. The losers do not get a say. They may need to work with other winners from the Democratic party, but each election requires one side to step away and let the other side run the show. They feel no obligation to act in the interests of those who supported the other side. This is yet another manifestation of the practical nature of Republican politics. The downside to this policy is that Republicans often face deep anger from disenfranchised portions of their population who, if they voted for 'the other guy' are left unrepresented and unheard during the term. Republicans believe that once they've won they do the best they can for their people even if their people don't see it or like it.
How does it hit the dialogue?
The effect of this is that Democrats are often appalled at how little Republicans seem to listen to voters outside of elections. Public hearings and other forums, even when vividly against a policy supported by a Republican rarely has any effect on that legislator and seems as if the Republican doesn't care. Quite the contrary, the Republican sees himself or herself as a winner and a leader authorized to make hard choices and doing their job. A common theme you hear when Republican legislators are questioned about their almost total disregard for ongoing feedback is not surprising considering the above points. “They aren't elected, I was. I'm doing what's right.”
The important take away from this point is actually found further back in the discussion about Republicans seeking leaders and Democrats seeking ideas. However to add to those point, Democrats should understand that attempting to appeal to a dynamic shift in voter disposition and opinion outside of an election process is generally wasted breath. Likewise, Republicans should understand that Democrats feel a strong need to constantly stand with public opinion which is where they can sometimes come across as flip-floppers or weak. This isn't a flaw in the Democrat's character as much as it is an attempt to stay on top of public opinion even away from electoral gain.
Conclusion
These differences are what make it hard for both sides to talk about the same thing. It's not just the platforms or the right/left political line that determines disputes, it's the very nature by which each party sees the role of leadership. This is also why some people are likely to be drawn towards being Republicans or Democrats even before they know what the party really stands for; they are drawn to the style of leadership presented, not the ideas themselves.
What we can take away from this is how we might establish common ground as we try to improve political discourse in this country. We must accept that there are some some differences in how the parties approach the job of holding office instead of just differences in their talking points. Once we understand that, we can start to piece together the best approach to avoid confronting those core differences and instead navigate through them to the discussion about the issues. Think of this as a 'culture' of politics where a misstep or faux pas can result in a breakdown of talks before the important discussion even starts.
Unfortunately at this time I don't have advice on how to actually use this information to its best effect, but having it should help you talk to your friends and relatives about the issues of today without finding yourself drawn into a battle about the fundamentals of leadership, itself.
Good luck.
Here's what I see.
Democrats strive to find and follow ideas.
Republicans strive to find and follow leaders.
Democrats like big ideas. They like looking at the way things are and developing an image of what the future could be. They then fixate on that idea, working to vote in people and policies designed to make that idea a reality. This means that Democrats are not very loyal to their leaders unless progress is made towards the unifying idea. The moment it's not or the idea loses political momentum, Democrats have a hard time keeping their caucus together.
Republicans like leaders. They prefer to elect someone based on their character or potential and then let that leader make core decisions almost unilaterally. Republicans generally fall in behind their leaders without much question or challenge to the way that leader is moving unless the pressure in other directions is very strong. The stronger the Republican leader is perceived to be, the less dissent Republican lawmakers show.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats can't understand how Republicans will often follow their leaders right off a political cliff or into a position on an issue that seems ignorant, stupid, or counterproductive even from a conservative point of view. It makes Republicans look unthinking to them. Meanwhile Republicans can't understand, even if they enjoy, how Democrats seem determined not to work together once they get down to business. Democrats love ideas in the abstract, but the more concrete the work on that idea becomes the less they see one another as chasing common cause. This, in turn, makes them less supportive of their own leaders and makes those leaders look weak and often beleaguered by their own party particularly during moments of numeric strength in the legislature.
Democrats try to make the world better by imaging what America could be.
Republicans try to make the world better by imaging what America should be.
The distinction here is subtle but important. Democrats, governed by ideas, try to establish a vision of what the country could be if it placed it's priorities on progressive goals and left behind the things that seem to be holding us back. The problem is that many of these ideas of where the US could be are unproven and uncertain. It is hard to sell to the general public what might be a better way to live. Democrats are usually critical of Republican failure to embrace what seems like a clear path towards improvement.
Republicans look to what has actually worked in the past and what they personally value to determine what America should look like. Change is as much a part of the Republican platform as it is for Democrats, but they prefer to change towards proven policies and traditional values. Republicans are usually automatically critical of movement away from policies or governance in place during times of America's past prosperity.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats see Republicans as mired in limitations, chained to traditions, and blind to the potential of their nation. To a Democrat a Republican is ruled by their fear and refuses to open their eyes to the breadth of options that might allow America to be so much better than it is or ever was. Democrats can, however, get caught up in their ideas and often miss the simple, proven solution right in front of them.
Republicans see Democrats as dreamers - a group who imagines some Utopian world off in the distance they want to chase without heed to the realities of the present or lessons of the past. Because of this, unless the idea presented by their blue counterpart has some grounding in past success, they tend to tune them out and in so doing they often tend to miss some great opportunities that they otherwise might support.
Democrats are concerned mostly about the process.
Republicans are concerned mostly about the product.
To a Democrat, nothing is worth doing if the steps that lead to it are tainted. This is not to say Democrats are immune to corruption or underhanded tactics, but rather that they generally hold a value on the process of getting things done that trumps any product. Morality is not just defined by what is accomplished but by how it is accomplished and the later shouldn't ever take a back seat to the former. Democrats therefore often bicker endlessly about the steps to take in pursuit of their ideals. When combined with the point above, democratic leadership often looks like barely controlled chaos.
Republicans tend to see politics as a series of extremely practical steps taken to achieve a noble ends. This means to the Republican the vast majority of the moral weight of any political action is in product that is being sought. If the ends are moral, just, and good then whatever unpleasant steps that lead to getting there are the acceptable consequence of leadership. This does not mean Republicans never question the morality of the steps they take, but they are less concerned with those questions so long as they lead in a direction they believe to be just.
How does it hit the dialogue?
Democrats often think Republicans are underhanded and dishonest for using politically ruthless methods to get from point A to point B. Republicans answer by pointing out the good they're doing and basically telling Democrats to put their big boy pants on and deal with the realities of political combat. Republicans see Democratic attacks on Republican methods as distraction tactics and technicalities designed to re-frame the issue away from the good that Republicans are doing. In short, Democrats often see Republicans as utilitarian, willing to justify any means by the merit of the ends. Republicans see Democrats as petty, focusing on the details at the expense of the greater good.
Democrats participate in elections they win.
Republicans win elections they participate in.
Democrats and Republicans do not see electoral victory the same way. Democrats see it as more influence of their ideas in the general public, the whole of which generates legislation. They take seriously the idea that they represent both parties after a victory, and while they absolutely seek their own agenda, that agenda tends to be an inclusive one. This is just one more example of how Democrats can look and feel unfocused. They will cross the aisle more readily, produce legislation that is not in line with party goals in order to be consistent with their constituents, and tend to be less willing to be combative. A good example of this behavior is Obama's almost visceral aversion to taking shots at the Republicans. The belief in attempting to represent the whole colored by the ideals of the party prevails. Pure partisanship is seen as an electoral strategy not suitable for governance.
Republicans see elections as a mandate and a referendum on their agenda. Once elected, they are the winners and the other side are the losers. The losers do not set policy. The losers do not get a say. They may need to work with other winners from the Democratic party, but each election requires one side to step away and let the other side run the show. They feel no obligation to act in the interests of those who supported the other side. This is yet another manifestation of the practical nature of Republican politics. The downside to this policy is that Republicans often face deep anger from disenfranchised portions of their population who, if they voted for 'the other guy' are left unrepresented and unheard during the term. Republicans believe that once they've won they do the best they can for their people even if their people don't see it or like it.
How does it hit the dialogue?
The effect of this is that Democrats are often appalled at how little Republicans seem to listen to voters outside of elections. Public hearings and other forums, even when vividly against a policy supported by a Republican rarely has any effect on that legislator and seems as if the Republican doesn't care. Quite the contrary, the Republican sees himself or herself as a winner and a leader authorized to make hard choices and doing their job. A common theme you hear when Republican legislators are questioned about their almost total disregard for ongoing feedback is not surprising considering the above points. “They aren't elected, I was. I'm doing what's right.”
The important take away from this point is actually found further back in the discussion about Republicans seeking leaders and Democrats seeking ideas. However to add to those point, Democrats should understand that attempting to appeal to a dynamic shift in voter disposition and opinion outside of an election process is generally wasted breath. Likewise, Republicans should understand that Democrats feel a strong need to constantly stand with public opinion which is where they can sometimes come across as flip-floppers or weak. This isn't a flaw in the Democrat's character as much as it is an attempt to stay on top of public opinion even away from electoral gain.
Conclusion
These differences are what make it hard for both sides to talk about the same thing. It's not just the platforms or the right/left political line that determines disputes, it's the very nature by which each party sees the role of leadership. This is also why some people are likely to be drawn towards being Republicans or Democrats even before they know what the party really stands for; they are drawn to the style of leadership presented, not the ideas themselves.
What we can take away from this is how we might establish common ground as we try to improve political discourse in this country. We must accept that there are some some differences in how the parties approach the job of holding office instead of just differences in their talking points. Once we understand that, we can start to piece together the best approach to avoid confronting those core differences and instead navigate through them to the discussion about the issues. Think of this as a 'culture' of politics where a misstep or faux pas can result in a breakdown of talks before the important discussion even starts.
Unfortunately at this time I don't have advice on how to actually use this information to its best effect, but having it should help you talk to your friends and relatives about the issues of today without finding yourself drawn into a battle about the fundamentals of leadership, itself.
Good luck.
Comments
Post a Comment