It is well documented that politics in the US has grown more partisan over the past two decades. Why? –The factors most frequently blamed are the increasing influence of money in politics combined with the growth of cable news and the radicalization of the major parties. In a new book entitled If We Can Keep It: How the Republic Collapsed and How It Might Be Saved, author Michael Tomasky adds a subtle twist to the conventional analysis. According to Tomasky, the while the Democratic party has continued to be a big tent coalition, representing a wide array of interest groups and policy priorities, the Republican party has grown increasingly narrow in its perspective and priorities.
Tomasky begins by documenting his contention that polarization has always characterized American politics–with the single exception of the five decades following World War II. He then argues that the the effects of polarization were contained in every other period except that leading up the Civil War by a crucial dynamic: intra-party polarization. Divided parties or, more precisely, broadly based parties that admitted a variety of perspectives and contention between them, blunted the worst effects of partisanship as a whole. Tomasky’s conclusion, then, is that the absence of intra-party rivalry in the Republican Party is largely to blame for the scale and virulence of the inter-party we have experienced over the past couple of decades.
It’s certainly a provocative thesis. If true, Republicans would do well to restore the breadth that once characterized their party, while Democrats would do well to maintain the breadth of their own. Where ever your own partisan loyalties lie, it’s easy to see how civility might play a role in achieving these aims.
