Polarized

Polarized

Slavery was the “…serpent under the table” at the US Constitutional convention.  It awakened as the critical issue during the decades long lead-up to the American Civil War.  Legislators over the first half of the 19^th century reached a series of compromises that pushed the crisis down the road, but, as mid-century was passed, there was little room for compromise left.

The last “Great Compromise” in 1850 tried to divide the new territories acquired in the Mexican-American War into slave and free areas.  California entered the union as a free state, Texas as a slave state, and the territories of New Mexico and Utah were granted the right to decide by vote, popular sovereignty.  This maintained the precarious balance of slave and free in the Congress.

But to “sweeten” the deal for the slave states, the Compromise also included the Fugitive Slave Act.  This law required that runaway slaves that made their way to free states must be returned to their masters in the South.  Federal marshals and other officials who did not fulfill that duty were subject to fines.

The Act was anathema to the abolitionists in the north.   There were dramatic protests and legal arguments, and folks jailed for refusing to obey the law.  It was the “wedge” the drove anti-slave and slave farther apart, with the South demanding the law be enforced, and the North outraged at the forced immorality it required.

By the late 1850’s the split was further exacerbated by the Supreme Court, who in the Dred Scott Decision, ruled that slaves had no standing in court to sue.  If slaves (or former slaves) could not go to the Court to enforce freedom, then ultimately it would be impossible for “free” states to remain free.

And popular sovereignty, allowing territories to determine their own status of slavery, turned out to be a recipe for violence.  The Kansas Territory ended up in a state of civil war, as both sides violently fought for their cause.  It was a rehearsal for the national battles soon to come.

By 1860 there was little middle ground left.  The Presidential candidate of the center, Democrat Stephen Douglas, received few electoral votes.  The results for the candidate of the North, Lincoln, and the one of the South, Breckenridge, showed the divided nation.  War was only a few months away.

The middle ground is slipping away today as well.  The “Republican Party” of Lincoln and even George Bush has been co-opted by President Trump.  The remaining old-school Republicans have found voice only in retirement, with Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jeff Flake of Arizona and John Kasich of Ohio the best examples. The traditional views and values of the Republican Party have been left behind.

The Democratic Party is only marginally better.  The current split between “left” and “lefter:” Progressives versus near-Socialists, has left the traditional centrist Democrats with no where to go.   There is little room in either party for a supporter of individual rights and fiscal responsibility, the traditional stand of the “Blue Dog” Democrat or “Rockefeller” Republican.

And our current means of communicating, with a choice of tailored news outlets that give the news that fits your views, serves to drive the wedge in deeper.   Seldom is heard the “other side,” and if so, then critical commentary quickly follows.  The power of the “tweet,” so effectively used by Trump, has narrowed our political discussion to 240 characters, and obliterated the value of the truth in our discussions.

The United States, created in compromise at the writing of the Constitution, is finding itself unable to reach a middle ground.  Those who try to reach agreement in the political sphere, now find themselves struggling to survive primary elections where extremism is the winning strategy. This is not just an ideological issue, it has become part of our structure with the gerrymandering of political districts that reward that extremism.

Are we on the verge of some kind of modern-day Civil War?  Whether President Trump is stopped and potentially removed, or his term is fought out in elections and tweets, is there some point where one side or the other will find the political arena unsatisfactory, and move to other, more dangerous venues? Are we so polarized that there is no path to the center?

The potential is there:  a Congress that is unwilling to act, a Supreme Court soon to be dominated by a marginal, far-right view promulgated by the Federalist Society, and a President who is demonstrating a willingness to embrace authoritarianism.  We are quickly moving to a political scene where there is no room for the center.  And when there is no compromise, then one side or the other will seek some other way to redress their grievances.

But there is still hope to avoid an existential crisis.  An election in November could start to fill in the center (though it could also further divide.)  There are still courageous leaders, willing to stand up for what they believe regardless of the consequences.  Non-political voices like John Brennan and Admiral William McRaven, and the remaining moderates in both parties are still there, though muted.

There are a large majority of Americans who still fall in the political middle.  They need representation as well, and those representatives could serve as the balance to the extremes of both sides.  We can hope that America, founded in compromise, might find its center again.