THE PRICE OF POLARIZATION

 Artículo de Jim Hoagland  en “The Washington Post” del 05/05/2005

Por su interés y relevancia, he seleccionado el artículo que sigue para incluirlo en este sitio web. (L. B.-B.)

Whenever politicians proclaim that it is time for a great national debate on Issue X, it usually means they have no idea what to do about X. Over to you, John Q.

But deflection carries risk in an era when the international political zeitgeist is dominated by paradox and backlash. At home and abroad, the tribalization of modern politics makes debate-mongering an unpredictable enterprise.

Ask George W. Bush, who sees his approval ratings and the support for Social Security reform decline even as he spends his political capital spotlighting that issue. Or ask Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder how they fare in selling the French and other Europeans on their duty to endorse a dense if worthy constitution for the European Union.

Self-inflicted wounds are the most interesting of political mistakes. President Chirac could have had the French Parliament ratify the constitution -- which is in fact a diplomatic treaty -- and avoided the now apparent risks in a May 29 referendum. And Bush was not responding to public clamor on Social Security.

In both cases, many citizens may resent being dragged into complicated problems that they elect and employ politicians to resolve for them. "The people" understand, at least on an instinctive level, that what is really at stake when they are called in is a breakdown of compromise and trust among the politicians themselves.

The mood of popular backlash spans the Atlantic: Bush's curious initial 60-day tour to rally support for a big but essentially unexplained idea bore a striking resemblance to the obfuscatory political campaign that Chirac has mounted to get French voters to endorse a 70,000-word document that few of them will even try to read.

That telltale measure of the trouble that Chirac faces came this week when I heard French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier express joy that "this is a rare moment when the French are debating [the concept of] Europe." The people, he explained, "have understood that we have to have the means if we want a strong Europe" and will thus vote yes.

Interesting if true. Even more interesting for an American is how Chirac initially sought to get votes by framing the constitution as a bulwark against "ultra-liberal capitalism" and, by implication, against American power in the world. Chirac has since softened these references, but German Chancellor Schroeder echoed the sentiment last week by claiming that there was interest outside of Europe in seeing the constitution fail.

The Bush administration has in fact publicly endorsed a stronger Europe and adopted a positive attitude toward the constitution, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated to Barnier this week. But those statements can go ignored if they conflict with the political needs of the moment.

As Wolfgang Schaeuble, a senior Christian Democratic politician, told John Vinocur of the International Herald Tribune in Berlin: "People here don't like Bush, and Schroeder tries to run for election against him every day of the year."

There is clear tribal appeal in such tactics. Unfortunately, their use is not limited to Schroeder or to the other side of the Atlantic. Just as allied leaders who once cooperated against Cold War threats now find political profit in emphasizing their disagreements -- the tactic is not unknown at the Bush White House or Tony Blair's Downing Street office -- the governing class in Washington today is riven by give-no-quarter political competition that denigrates compromise across party and ideological lines.

The Bush White House bears a great deal of the responsibility for what the president correctly deplores as a "lack of civility" in polarized Washington. His decision to force a public debate on Social Security, rather than follow the Reagan-era model of empowering a bipartisan commission to make painful compromises behind closed doors, is a good example of the confrontational approach and its costs.

The Democratic minority in Congress responds in kind, preferring political gain from opposing Bush (and his nominees) to compromises that would result in credit for the president. I once covered tribal politics in Kenya. The atmosphere in Washington today would be familiar to any Kikuyu or Luo politician I knew there.

"We are not just opponents or rivals now. We are enemies, with every fight being zero-sum," says a senior Republican lawmaker sorrowfully. Echoes a Democrat: "Compromise is seen as weakness by many of your constituents, and by all of your potential opponents in the next primary."

Walter Lippmann wrote in 1925 that Americans would always favor a political system that created "not parties of principle, but governing majorities." The reverse would be disastrous, he suggested. Half-right, Mr. Lippmann.