Dec 10, 2017 4 min read

I thought Dave Ball was on to something important when he posed the question, “Totalitarianism in America?” in the commentary section of the Nov. 26 Observer-Reporter. His comments on the dangers of “eliminating independent thinking in society” were spot on, and deserve consideration. Unfortunately, his conclusion that progressive Democrats and the “New World Order” were the sole cause of the swing away from democratic principles was a disappointment.

Ball went from the profound to the partisan. In fact, all political ideologies in America have been responsible for eroding rational political discourse and responsible governance.

Political discourse has been defined as the exchange of reasoned views, offering several alternative courses of action to solve societal problems. Rational political discourse provides the framework that permits a pluralistic society to function. All political views should seek to find common cause to work within this framework and to achieve responsible governance.

For our democracy to function properly, elected officials must work within an environment of ongoing negotiation, seeking to reconcile the views of citizens with different social, economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. In the American political system, rational discourse is the referee that sets and enforces the rules for those with an ideology to pursue. The game itself is messy and never ends. But no political win or loss can be considered final, because the ideas of the loser may be reconsidered as opinions change over time. Only rational discourse and the need for responsible governance remain constant.

I could not agree more with Ball’s observation that there is a pervasive “focus on eliminating critical and independent thinking at all levels of society.” This troubling trend steps outside the rules of rational discourse, which are based on “respectful tolerance” in which participants are in conflict, but agree to listen to each other on a level playing field. Instead, the American public and its elected officials have too readily adopted both intolerance, where no discourse takes place, and permissive tolerance, where there is discourse, but unfair playing conditions placed on others, usually minorities.

How do we place the rational discourse referee back in the game and return to the playing field of respectful tolerance? First there must be the recognition that no political ideology is a replacement for rational discourse and responsible governance. A political actor may hold an ideology within the democratic framework, but must be ready to listen and compromise. Unfortunately, adherents to each of our primary ideologies within American democracy have been guilty of doing just the opposite. This makes our polity operate more like an ongoing battle between religions, or one based on tribal loyalties and less like the pluralistic system envisioned by our founders.

No political ideology can claim clean hands when it comes to undermining rational discourse. I will start in my corner of the playing field with liberalism. Since the end of World War II, and with greater zeal since the end of Soviet Communism, liberals have sought to replace elements of nationalism with elements of “global equality” and “global democracy.” Open trade, open borders and transnational legal systems seemed like the wave of the future in the 1990s.

Following a devastating recession, many Americans did not buy into this vision. These voters were convinced that such policies attacked their identities and that liberalism no longer spoke to their needs. Similar opposition occurred all over the Western world, as liberal policies on trade and immigration were vilified. Clearly, for progressives to regain the high ground, not only morally in the age of Donald Trump – hopefully only a very strange and temporary outlier – but also politically, we must open our minds and find a new path that more voters can identify with. Not unlike the philosopher kings praised by Plato, liberals thought their ideas were beyond reproach. We were wrong on both counts.

On a second point, liberals have been too open to embracing identity politics, overlooking policies that are attractive to all Americans.

For example, once 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton identified prospective Trump voters as “deplorables” there was little opportunity for liberals to engage them, either during or after the election. Moreover, Clinton speeches praising and evoking the rights of immigrants, minorities and the LGBTQ community were interpreted by many white Americans as a plan to leave them behind.

Next week, I will look at how political players on the right side of the spectrum have damaged political discourse and rational governance.