Slippery Slope: Silencing of the Centrists

Watching the shifts in the political landscape in the U.S. makes one wonder whether Americans themselves are aware of how quickly and how dramatically the realm of the acceptable has changed.  Are the participants in the American political theatre sensitive to the impact of the scenes that they are acting out or are they simply responding to cues and fulfilling identifiable roles?  To the outside observer it is disheartening to watch; whereas Americans can and do use the protection of freedom to justify nearly any act or public statement, the direction in which the U.S. is heading is clearly towards the more radical and polarised.  Does the American public realise that it is stepping ever closer to the radical behaviour that it so quickly condemns in other nations?  The rhetoric, hate and ignorance being expressed in mainstream America today demonstrates an intolerance that was once left to the political fringes.  Accusations, condemnations and outright fabrications that were once beyond the pale of acceptable discourse have now become tolerated and readily used.  None of this is to the credit of freedom of expression or to the culture of political discourse in the U.S.

So, where does this leave the centrists, be they leaning left or right?  When one side of the debate has been taken over by, or perhaps handed over to, the extremists, where are the moderates to go?  Whereas it is obvious that the loudest, most shrill voices belong to a minority, what were once marginalised groups that were condemned by the establishment have now become tools cynically used by it (see Stuart Fischoff in Psychology Today).  Opposition in the healthcare debate is critical to the process (as is opposition to other prominent issues on the new administration’s agenda, including alternative energy, global warming and education).  The issue is not that there are those who disagree with or oppose, even passionately, any particular policy but is the radicalisation of the debate and the use of hate, lies and terror tactics (see here for President Obama on the issue).  The behaviour being witnessed at the healthcare town halls or in the crazed objections to the President’s recent address to school children is a combination of the loss of reason in the face of fear and the media’s clamouring for more of the same (and ignoring events that are not sensationalist) (See Rick Perlstein).

Whereas the Republican leadership is responsible for handing over its party to the extremists, the right-wing talking heads are to be blamed for creating the climate and incentives that appeal to politicians that put popularist pandering before ethics and civic values.  The media and, as a result, the public are distracted by extremist accusations that Obama is a Nazi who wants to kill everyone's grandma, thus presenting a distorted view that feeds the feeling by moderates that they are no longer represented in the debate (see James Rainey in the LA Times). The level of ignorance being displayed by Republican leaders and their use of the destructive demagoguery is shocking.  Regardless of their views on a specific policy, what has happened to the concepts of integrity and accountability?  Or, perhaps, they really are that stupid, which is no consolation. The American national policy debate has turned into a sad parody of the intentions of freedom of speech.

The centre, as a result of the circus (with a disproportionate number of clowns) that is political debate in American, has had its already acute feelings of helplessness and disenfranchisement sharpened.  The sane, even-keeled citizens of the centre find themselves in a polarised society that feeds off sound-bites, sensationalism, fear mongering and demonization.  This phenomenon is by no means exclusively American but somehow the American manifestation of these problems is particularly difficult to stomach, partially because of the exponential increase in “radical creep” that has infected mainstream politics.  It was during the last presidential campaign that the blurring line dividing acceptable rhetoric from radical, irrational and hateful spewing was fully dissolved.  Whereas John McCain still had the courage to challenge the ignorance of the Birthers and those propagating racist and bigoted lies, Sarah Palin encouraged the hateful chants at her rallies (see Frank Rich in the NYT).  The Republican party today is no longer representative of centrist that favour, amongst other things, small government and fiscal conservatism, but has become the party of the type of ignorance espoused by the reactionary followers of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (See conservative David Brooks on the insanity).

So, where does this leave American democracy?  For one, without a respectable and viable opposition.  It also leaves a meaningful portion of the centre without a voice; whereas one does not expect to agree with all of a party’s positions, the Republicans have fallen so low that many of its moderate members can no longer find a way to defend and justify its positions or how it communicates them.  With the radicalisation of the Republican party there is no longer a reasonable alternative to the Democrats.  Americans are now feeling the helplessness that has been the plight of moderates in many other nations, both democratic and not.  Will the Republicans come to their senses and reclaim their place in the centre-right of the political arena?  Is the current situation a natural over-compensation following the morally corrupt tenure of W. and his party’s subsequent defeat?  Will the pendulum inevitably swing back towards the centre?  Or are we seeing an irrevocable descent into radical, polarising, and popularist politics that will either drag the whole system down with it or, more optimistically, lead to the creation of a new alternative?  For the sake of the American centre and, indeed, the country as a whole, we hope the latter prevails over the former.