ONE OFTEN mentioned proposal for political reform is a reinvigoration of moderate positions in American life. Books like "The Radical Center" call for moderate positions to become a greater force in American politics, while others decry the increased polarization of American political parties. We have all seen the statistics that indicate the rates of political alienation in the United States.
It is easy for this type of polarization to build when both parties stand dominated by "activists" who take hard-line positions on issues and tend to drive out potential moderates. A microcosm of this process may be seen at the University, where campus politics tend to be polarized between ideological liberals and conservatives, with those not adhering to those positions effectively shut out.
Sociology Prof. James Davison Hunter made this point strongly in his Sept. 22 lecture "Culture Wars Reconsidered." Hunter, who has been writing about the "culture war" since the early 1990s, made the important point that while public opinion polls may seem to indicate consensus in our society, they tend to ignore the deep cleavages which manifest themselves at a broad level in competing ideologies. We are faced with two irreconcilable moral worldviews on most issues these days, cleavages which Hunter insists are the products of interest groups, elites and a small core of loyal activists on each side. There is no "dynamic center," no moderate party in American politics; moderates do not lead social revolutions and do not have a strong, unified voice.
This is certainly demonstrated at the University, where political clubs, such as University Democrats and College Republicans, are invariably led by hard liners of both parties. This means that these groups unintentionally but effectively shut out more moderate political voices. There is no moderate political movement that takes stands on issues, only non-partisan or non-political groups. Members of these ideological groups set the public agenda and disproportionately control the public voice. An example is the Opinion pages of this very newspaper, but even other publications at the University as well as national newspapers have even more decided partisan preferences. This is a bad thing for the majority of us who do not identify with a political party. What is increasingly true at the national level is also true of university politics.
University Democrats President Dave Wasserman acknowledged in an interview that the active members of his organization "tend to be pretty liberal" and have "pretty broad agreement" on contested issues. This is not surprising given that active members of this group as well as the College Republicans are supposed to work to at the grassroots to get members of their own party elected. But it also means that the prevailing views of these groups are amplified and exaggerated, designed consciously to clash sharply with the opposing side.
This is certainly a flaw of the moderate position itself, which tends to exist as a negation of the "extremes" of both parties rather than a positive viewpoint. But the reality is that both major parties used to represent a broader spectrum of the ideological spectrum. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are increasingly becoming contradictions in terms. Changes in the political process, including the increased importance of the national government and national campaigns, and the resulting reliance on large financial contributions and campaign work provided by inspired party regulars, have resulted in the need to inflame party regulars and polarize the public by forcing voters to align with one of two extreme camps. Local politicos become reliant, in effect, on national money, which forces them to take an increasingly narrow number of stands on issues. The result is that policy becomes divided invariably between a liberal or conservative bent and does not serve interests other than partisan.
The toll of these processes is exacted on free discourse. Any position introduced into the political realm invariably becomes "liberal" or "conservative" and evaluated as such. Innovative policy is shut out as parties focus their attention on their own narrow range of favored proposals. The gap between politics and reality increases, as does the gap between the parties and those who do not share their position. Politics are not necessarily a good thing if their consequence is to inflame and exaggerate differences within our society.
Noah Peters' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
