“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens of whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.” – Senator Edward Kennedy speech to U.S. Senate 1987
In 1984 for my senior thesis for the Political Studies portion of my degree I wrote on the decline of party identification and rise of single issue politics. In it I detailed voter identification pattern post-World War II though the 1980 Presidential election. What the data showed was that voters were increasingly casting their votes because of politicians stances on one or two core issues—abortion, gun control, nuclear armament (remember this was pre-1980) and other issues that could cut across party lines. What began to occur is the political parties increased the sizes of their tents to address specific issues and to capture segments of the electorate, and began to move away from speaking to the ideology by which problems would be solved.
Post-World War II voters felt an ideological identification with the political party with whom they were registered, and one of the strongest indicators of that affiliation and identification was the party with which their parents were registered. As America progressed through the post-war period and the burgeoning economic growth and prosperity that marked much of the fifties and early sixties children were raised who did not have the concerns and worries of their parents—who were products of the Great Depression and fought and worked through World War II. America was in the beginning of the Cold War and our foreign policy was focused on stopping the spread of Communism through Europe, Asia, Africa and Central America.
As the first Baby Boomers came of age through the chicken in every pot and car in every garage era they began to look beyond the “Life” magazine ideal they were told they were raised in and to look at the world beyond their neighborhood or suburb and into other parts of their cities and country. From the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929 through the end of World War II in 1945 America lived in a period of on-going crisis and threat, be it economic or personal. Given the immense challenges faced by their parents and grandparents, the post-war generation lived in relative peace and prosperity. As they achieved educational levels not attained by many in the preceding generations, they began to explore the issues and problems being presented in their own country.
This ideological awakening created the impetus for the tremendous social and political upheavals of the Sixties and into the Seventies. Americans became more and more aware of the systematic disadvantages placed on millions of their fellow citizens through Jim Crow laws, deed restrictions, educational segregation and many other then legal and cultural means. More importantly they saw their brothers, cousins, prom dates and neighbors drafted to fight a war across the world that did have the unified support of the populace and politicians—as did the war fought by their parents.
As the Baby Boomers became more and more politically aware, but shut out of the political process as voters until they turned 21 (the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 was not passed until 1971) they began their own form of political participation with marches, sit-ins and demonstrations. By the late Sixties these forms of political dissent became increasingly frequent and reached a high point with Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech at the Washington Mall.
The undercurrent to the demonstrations and protests were the divides occurring in both political parties on the issues of minority and women’s rights, economic opportunity and access to education, opposition to war and an underlying theme of the purpose of government. On a micro level as the Baby Boomers came of age and could register to vote they began to leave the parties of their parents and either register for the “other” party or not register to vote with either party and declare themselves “independent.” Specific issues and politicians responses to those issues drove more and more voting decisions by Americans—and therefore the reaction of the Democrats and Republicans as they tried to bring the independents under their tents.
To capture the ever increasing number of voters who did not align with either party for ideological reasons, the parties began to polarize on specific issues. This changed the political debate on many levels, primarily from solutions to problems, current or unseen, being based on a secure ideological base, the parties offered their positions on problems that currently existed and it was increasingly rare to hear them put the solutions in ideological terms. As this occurred voters began to vote for the party that aligned with them on one, two, or three issues—often forgiving them for their position on other issues. Because of this the parties became increasingly polarizing and each issue was cast as black-and-white for the voters. “You are either with us or with them.”
This type of politics made it easier for the parties to raise money as they could trumpet specific issue for specific groups for fund raising, and ignore for certain groups issues that they would oppose. Special interests groups found themselves with more and more power as they were able to pour money into campaigns targeting positions on specific issues, ignoring ideological bases and concentrating on getting candidates elected who supported their positions on a specific issue. The more issues a candidate could embrace with financial backing the better chance she or he had of winning.
This all culminated in the 1987 Senate confirmation hearing of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings Senator Edward Kennedy (D Mass) gave a speech on the Senate floor in which he warned if Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court was confirmed by the Senate Americans would see themselves returned to the mid-1800s, as the quote at the top of this post shows. With one comment in a speech Kennedy crystallized the polarization of the parties and opened the door for partisan politics to wrap up all the social issues into “us and them.” Most importantly, from that date on there was one litmus test that determined support for or from candidates—abortion. Every judicial appointee at any level, every candidate for public office, and every presidential candidate is now judge on pro life versus choice. The drift from ideological identification and to single issue politics culminated in one issue being the overriding issue for all of politics, whether an individual believed a woman had the right to terminate a pregnancy or whether the state had the right to protect the unborn child and deny the accessibility of a legal abortion.
Since post-9/11 the American political landscape has seen the fringes of both parties move further left and right and declare themselves “the base” of their parties. While undergoing this stretch they have adhered to strict positions on issues and denied support to anyone who dare cross them on those issues. Hillary gets lambasted for her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq; Rudy gets lambasted for his support of the legality of abortion; and on it goes. This increasing polarization of the far left and right however has created an ever growing middle where most of us live. The percentage of voters registered with all parties is down 7% from when Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 through 2006. As the party’s “bases” increasingly exert influence over the stances they demand their candidates take they are driving members from their parties. This influence is easy to exert because people are much more likely to donate money to causes in which they fervently believe—thus the majority of financial support for elections comes from the outer elements of both parties.
As candidates move themselves further from their original positions on issues to appeal to the “bases” for money and support they are moving themselves further away from the majority of voters who may otherwise agree with and vote for them. In the end we end up with politicians pandering to special interest groups to get elected, then having to satisfy those same elements to stay elected, in the meantime the natural moderate nature of the overwhelming majority of Americans is unrepresented as the political pendulums swing past them from cycle to cycle.
As we get into the presidential primaries get past the reporting on the nightly news, the local papers and the wire services and dig into the internet sites to watch the number times the different candidates change the meaning of their statements; i.e. the spin when something they say to a small group in New Hampshire ticks off a larger group meeting on the internet in New York, Chicago and Seattle. With some many diverse issues and members under their tents any candidate speaking strictly to an interest group to please them rather than from an ideological basis will undoubtedly be caught time and again having to explain what they said was not what they really said and that it was “taken out of context” when in reality it was not meant for the general public but for a small and specific group he or she is trying to capture. Note as well that each one of the corrections will move the candidate further from the moderate stance they may have taken and back towards the left or right to appease their “base” or party fringe.
With the Abortion Litmus Era filtering politicians speech and pandering the environment exists for a legitimate moderate appealing to the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats to capture national attention—too bad no one has the guts to represent the majority of America.