Commentators have been working overtime trying to explain how American politics have become such a dysfunctional mess. How could a minority bring the nation to the brink of default?
Fingers have been pointed in several directions. High on the list of culprits include the role played by “big money” in distorting our political process, the fact that congressional districts have become so “gerrymandered” that elections for the House of Representatives are no longer competitive and the degree to which ideologically based media has poisoned our political discourse. Also receiving mention are the Tea Party, the lack of comity between the parties in Congress and the demagoguery of Senator Ted Cruz.
The root causes of America’s current disorders are maladies that run deep. There is the residual aftershock from 9/11. There is the continuing trauma from the economic crisis. There are the anxieties experienced by those who have recoiled in the face of rapidly changing social and sexual mores. And then there’s the matter of race.
The September 11 attacks ended the decade of relative peace and prosperity that had defined the Clinton era. Although the US had emerged as the world’s sole superpower, in an instant, our sense of security collapsed. Sitting glued to our televisions, we didn’t just watch the drama unfold, we personally experienced the horror and claimed it as our own. Many still retain a sense of vulnerability and anger.
This sense of “being on the edge” was compounded by the economic collapse of 2008. Stock values plummeted, taking a huge bite out of pension funds. One in five homeowners feared mortgage foreclosure and unemployment doubled. Banks and car makers were bailed out, but middle class Americans who had worked hard and played by the rules were forced to bear the brunt of the collapse.
The 2008 election played out against this backdrop, where two themes emerged, both reflecting different reactions to the crisis. For his part, Barack Obama sought to generate a sense of hope, speaking “to the angels of our better selves”. On the other hand, his opponents preyed on insecurity.
This continued after the election, taking on the added dimension of xenophobia, as opponents of the new president discovered they could whip up crowds by questioning whether Mr Obama was a Muslim or if he was even born in the US.
There are those who still argue that the Tea Party was a reaction to growing budget deficits or the fear of government control and “death panels” that would come with Obamacare. While these were, in fact, the issues raised by the Tea Party, they were not its cause. A review of polling data establishes that this was largely a movement of angry and insecure middle-aged, middle class, white people. To this group’s fear that the American Dream had ended, was now added the not-so-subtle resentment that a young, smart African-American was sitting in the White House.
Add to this the dramatic changes in contemporary social and sexual mores and you have the brew that spawned our political disorder.
The worldview of this group, which became the Tea Party’s base, reflected the traumas that brought them into existence. It is, in a word, infantile. It is absolutist. And it is apocalyptic. In their world, purity is a requirement and compromise is evil.
One must be sympathetic, to a degree, because these folks are hurting. Their insecurity is real and their anger can, to some extent, be justified. But the dangers they represent cannot be understated.
They were exploited by some in the Republican establishment who believed they could simply use the anger of this constituency as fodder to advance the agenda of defeating the Democratic president. The rhetoric used to court them was shameful. It was xenophobic and bigoted. And as they preyed on fears, they warned of exaggerated threats and apocalyptic catastrophes.
Demagogues on talk radio and TV fuelled the anger, big money played its part in funding and organising this base into an electoral force.
Because the nation’s congressional districts had been “gerrymandered” into largely solid Republican and Democratic districts, Tea Party types not only turned out to support like-minded candidates, they also ran and won seats on their own. It was at this point that the creature that had been fuelled and funded by the Republican establishment turned on its creator taking on a life of its own.
The establishment hadn’t counted on this outcome. They wanted to use the Tea Party as leverage to win for themselves. But in the last two elections, Tea Party candidates defeated more mainstream Republicans and now threaten to defeat even more Republicans who do not fully embrace their absolutist and apocalyptic world view.
One outcome of the recent debacle in Washington has been the realisation of some in the Republican establishment who now see the need to take on and defeat their creation. They can challenge the organisations and their champions. But unless they find a way to effectively and compassionately address the root causes and the deeper psychological disorders of those whom they once exploited, the anger will remain as will the current dysfunction that has infected the American political system.
James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute
On Twitter: @aaiusa