Capitol Hill Blue - Divided Nation Syndrome

CHB Home / Half-Shell Home/ Print This Page / Email this page

Divided Nation Syndrome

February 7, 2006 05:25 AM / FUBAR .

By BONNIE ERBE

Divided nation, divided nation. Sometimes I think if I hear that phrase just one more time, I'll scream. In a country where a 55 percent margin of victory in a presidential race is and historically has been considered a landslide, I wish someone would explain when we were NOT a divided nation.

During the Civil War, perhaps? During McCarthyism? And more recently, during Watergate, or the Vietnam War?

And yet, it does seem we are much more polarized as a people than I recall us being two or three decades ago. Why does it seem worse?

I covered Congress for a now-defunct radio network from 1983-1989. When I first began following Hill politics on a daily basis, Republicans and Democrats certainly had their differences on the House and Senate floors and in committee sessions. But at day's end, they traded backslaps and paired off in bipartisan combinations for the golf course or the bar.

This is no longer so.

I trace the beginning of the end of bipartisan cooperation (and, more importantly, friendship) to Newt Gingrich's rise to power. In the '80s, he was a backbencher and a flame-thrower who climbed the ladder of invective to the speaker's chair. He gained media coverage by lashing out at Democrats using decibel levels to which the media were then unaccustomed. He was Crossfire before Crossfire was cool. And he brought into fashion televised tantrum-throwing later honed to perfection by the Ann Coulters, James Carvilles and Bill O'Reillys of the world.

Unfortunately for Gingrich, his flame-throwing caused him to flame out summarily. What he gained for his party (the first House Republican majority in 40 years) he lost personally by governing at the margin.

He shut down the federal government in a failed muster-match showdown with then-President Bill Clinton. In 1997, Gingrich led Republicans into a humiliating fight over partisan attachments (census changes, among others) to a disaster-relief bill, which Clinton vetoed.

Obviously, there are other takes on which side threw flames first and over what issue. In the spirit of evenhandedness, a Republican friend who served in the House in the '80s traces the beginning of the end of bipartisan spirit to Speaker Jim Wright's failed leadership and the Democrat's treatment of the then-minority party. But we firmly agree on one point: whichever side failed first, leadership is to blame for the climate of division.

Fast forward to today. We hear little these days from George W. Bush about uniting America (although he first campaigned for office as a "uniter") and much more about "playing to his base." Most conservative commentators noted that last week's State of the Union address was a pitch to his base and not much more. No wonder his approval numbers mirror his base's percentage of the voting population.

Clinton campaigned as a "uniter." As soon as he took office, however, he threw his left-wing base a few high-cost sops: a change in military rules on gays in the services (the much-maligned "don't ask, don't tell" policy) and a major push toward nationalized health care. Badly burned by his attempts to govern from the left, he spent most of the rest of his two terms working to make up for that _ for instance, revamping welfare "as we knew it"; launching international military efforts and courting traditionally Republican Wall Street.

Bush has made no such centrist efforts. In fact, late last year he offered one of the most significant lagniappes of his tenure _ if not THE most significant _ to conservatives: withdrawing Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court when arch-conservative columnists (George Will, Charles Krauthammer _ the list goes on ad nauseam) went into conniptions that she might not be conservative enough to tilt the bench rightward.

Given Bush's governance and his ceaseless kowtowing to the strident minority, no wonder we're divided. From arrogant isolationism on the international scene, to reversing five decades of progress on individual rights at home, no wonder we're divided. When you think about it, how could we be anything but?

(Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and columnist. E-mail bonnieerbe(at)CompuServe.com.)

Comments

Who got 55%? Not Bush. He got about 50.5% of the popular vote against Kerry in 2004, if I remember correctly. Check your facts!

Posted by at February 7, 2006 09:24 AM

It seems to me that at least as much of the "credit" for our level of division today should be given to Lee Atwater as to Mr. Gingrich. Newt may have driven the House majority swing but the scorched earth political tactics more properly belong, it seems to me, in Mr. Atwater's permanent record. Either way it has become a zero sum game and the American people are the losers.

Posted by Jim Brodhead at February 7, 2006 10:29 AM

I LOVE YOUR COMMENTS THEY ARE RIGHT ON TARGET, WHICH EVER FORMAT YOU USE, I CLICK ON EVERY DAY

Posted by Jules M Cowen at February 7, 2006 11:01 AM

Suggestion: Use a slightly bigger font and increase the contrast. I don't think the gray background is very functional. And I don't like to have to lean forward and squint.

Posted by Robert Byrnes at February 7, 2006 01:26 PM

Bonnie,
This is the first time since Pearl Harbor that we have been attacked on American Soil, then given incredibly inane and contemptuous reasons of said attack, of the destruction incurred,and redefining the use of 'Free Press Journalism' with icons such as Jeff Gannon.
Thereafter, empowering large vocal groups of Religious Wealthy Zealots to help spread the word:
" If you're not with us, you're against us."

Are you serious? No one dares to speak of these things, their implications and logical conclusions.

These people are playing for keeps. Get used to it.

Fact or Fiction, remember the words of John Titor.
Who would have thought?

Posted by aj at February 7, 2006 01:36 PM

btw,

Please tell Doug Thompson to get his butt back here ASAP or I'll do whatever
it takes to bring him back, tie him up to a PC desk and make him start typing.*

*i know where Flyod is....

Posted by aj at February 7, 2006 01:47 PM

...even if I don't know how to spell it....
Floyd

Posted by aj at February 7, 2006 01:54 PM

Why is it, that every time Mr.Bush speaks in public, he hunches over the podium like a spinless blob of jello, Please Mr.President, try to stand up straight when you are lying to me.

Posted by at February 7, 2006 02:54 PM

When electronic voting machines, which leave no audit trail, are used to count the votes how can we be certain that Dubya even won the election in 2004? Remember, elections are not decided by by the votes cast but by the way the votes are tallied. I think that, if paper ballots were used to record the votes and were hand tallied and checked by ordinary citizens, Dubya would have come up the loser in 2004 just like he was in the 2000 election poular vote. It was the contested vote count in Florida that determined the outcome then. You would think that Dubya's brother Jeb, who was governor of Florida then, would have asked for an impartial recount of the votes cast there to clear up the record but he didn't.
Kinda stinks doesn't it!

Posted by beelzabubb at February 7, 2006 03:39 PM

I remember during my stint in the Air Force information about the Me Lai massacre came out. Half of us were horrified and said this was not America. The other half had no problem with what had happened. So we were divided then as we are today. PS: Which group do you think supports Bush?

Posted by Charlie at February 7, 2006 04:46 PM

I love America with all my heart, but it is a bitter pill to swallow seeing the people in charge of it, make every decision possible that destroys this beautiful country, I'm in Shock and Awe from what I have seen the last couple of years! Is it to much to ask that we put someone in charge, that actually cares and wants the best for this great country and It's people?....(a guy can dream)

Posted by at February 7, 2006 08:41 PM

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq had no WMD.