The story of US: divided we stand

 “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."

Looking at the partisan gridlock that shuts down the Federal Government every other year should reminds us George Washington's warning in his 1796 Farewell Address. In this last speech, Washington -who had decided to be a two-term president and retire from public life at the height of his popularity instead of becoming (as some proposed) a King- lay down critical advice for those he knew will follow in a peaceful succession of governments. 

What Washington described more than 200 years ago is on today's news -and every four or some years-:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. "

Partisanship, Washington warned:

"serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Government shutdowns and filibusters are some of the forms divided government protects us from our extremists and our partisan excesses. Far from being "dysfunctional" (as frustrated partisans claim every time they play the play) is extremely effective as a enforcer of reason and negotiation. Everybody is served its share of humble pie and reminded government in the US is divided on purpose. And the purpose is bargaining and compromising.

Washington understood the value of partisan cross-checks over administrations as a way to keep them from excesses such as those the Framers saw in France with the Terror days. Partisanship was a natural manifestation of liberty to be protected:

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. 

But with restraint:

"in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”"

Looking at gridlock with the lenses of a long view, one of those restraints to extremism is the division of powers and the ability of each branch to put a stop on the others.

Madison (Federalist 10) and the Framers designed what we could call "the Madison trap" in the Constitution, creating a Republic of law ruled through layers of powers and representatives instead of a popular (and populist) Democracy ruled by referendums and "mandates" from circumstantial majorities. United States were not designed to elect monarchs but temporary custodians of the public interest. 

A divided government, paradoxically, helped a "house divided" such as the United States are stand together better than a monolithic one. 

After 250 + years, no other democratic government on Earth has succeeded without a single year of dictatorship. No Cesar, no Napoleon, no Party. Not even during or after a Civil War. Lincoln took war powers with restraint, looking at the long view of the war's aftermath and reconciliation.

For all the irrationality, waste and foolishness of the rules that allow government shutdowns, filibusters, federal and state rights and courts or other ways to block circumstantial majorities from ramming their priorities through our COTUS -or one-sided SCOTUS from legislating from the bench- , these "dysfunctional" rules of governance have been and will continue to be essential in keeping the United States as a Republic, just as Benjamin Franklin wanted.

Trump and Pelosi, as those who preceded them and those who will follow, will have to accept a negotiate with each other. The cost and difficulty of gridlock will always be lesser than the alternative. Look at Venezuela.

That's worth the regular scandal and food-fight spectacle we have every other time a controversial decision is to be made.

A house divided is, paradoxically, the way for US to stand.

Chickens and eggs: Polarized Parties, Moderate Voters and the other way around

Lack of civility and partisanship in COTUS and POTUS is the cause, not the consequences of "voters' polarization". 

Profesor Morris P. Fiorina, from Stanford University recent research indicates that voters are more moderate and flowing towards the center across the country , but political parties -and donors- are vastly more polarized.

This creates an interesting hypothesis for the current political scenario: voters in the center are increasingly dissatisfied with the available two-parties political options and forced to stay home or vote for a candidate that does not represent their views entirely.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview with James Taranto, Fiorina explains his findings in a way that might resonate to many moderates:

He arrives with a PowerPoint presentation that visualizes the data behind his theory. A pair of bar graphs show the ideological distribution of lawmakers in the 87th Congress (1961-63) and the 111th (2009-11). In both eras Democrats were the liberal party and Republicans the conservative one. But the pattern is markedly different: In 1961-63, both parties’ lawmakers tended to cluster in the middle. In 2009-11, there were two clusters—Democrats to the left, Republicans to the right. “There’s no longer any overlap at all,” Mr. Fiorina says. “The center is empty. That hasn’t happened in the electorate.”

A line graph illustrates the electorate’s continuity. The share of Americans identifying as politically moderate has remained fairly constant—around 40%, and usually a plurality—since at least 1974. In the same period, another chart shows, independents overtook Democrats as the biggest partisan grouping. As the parties drifted from the ideological middle, centrist voters disaffiliated from the parties. 

That creates what Mr. Fiorina calls “the ping pong pattern” of unstable majorities. One party manages “to win, narrowly, and then they immediately respond to their base. So Bush says we’re going to have personal Social Security accounts, and voters—some say, ‘I didn’t vote for that.’ Or Obama says we’re going to do government health care, and a lot of them say, ‘I didn’t vote for that.’ ” Lawmakers from the party in power “suffer for it in the next election, when they lose the marginal voters,” as Republicans did in 2006 and Democrats in 2010."

The cause of this phenomenon, argues Fiorina, is that political parties have nation-wide platforms with increasingly extreme positions, which play very differently in different states and districts, "sorting out" (emphasis in "out")  moderates that must vote for "a package" or stay home, leaving the district "red" or "blue". That creates also a pattern of swinging majorities, that change the composition and balance of power in both directions, creating a stalemate in most critical issues.

Frustrated voters in turn, blame "Washington" or COTUS for all the laws that they "didn't vote for" (Obamacare as an example) and "repeal and replace" them every 4 or 8 years, creating more uncertainty in critical issues such as healthcare, retirement and investment.

Fiorina expected Trump to break both parties and "re-sort" them closer to more moderate, middle-of-the road voters in spite of his ultra-partisan and divisive political speaking. 

For this column, it's hard to imagine why Fiorina came to have such expectation, other than the non-partisan attitude of a true political scientist. He proves himself an  example of the disappointed moderates that turn off the news in despair after Obamas or Trumps.

Fiorina provides a more compelling explanation in the extreme polarization of the donors class. Here, I think, he touches -although very briefly- some part of the elephant that irrupted in the US political room with Citizens United.

If the Trump White House portrayed by Michael Wolff and the Breitbart politics reported in "Devils Bargain" show something is that the Adelsons, Mercers, Murdochs, Ailes, Kochs, Soros and their "foundations" are the real king-makers in US politics. They not only elect the candidate and fund it; they create a willing voter that buys in what is washed on them by radio, cable news networks and even at the supermarket (let's not underestimate the Enquirer's role in the past election)

I would add gerrymandering to the mix to explain the phenomenon of minority-elected Presidents (like Bush 43 and Trump) and minority party-dominated COTUS that we have been experiencing since 2000.

Politicians -and their clients, their donors- blame voters for the polarization they force to get elected. 

Fiorina's study (and many others) show that it is the other way around. Here are some extra facts (and books)