The solution to Red and Blue division.

Schmidt on Crossfire

I promised to reveal the secret of why politics is so divided in the United States - the socalled red and blue phenomenon.

Reason number one is that only two parties overwhelmingly dominate politics - only Democrats or Republicans really have a chance to win elections. This means American politics is "dyadic" - i.e. two - and therefore debate tends to become "bi-polar". The pulling force is left and right. That spells confrontation.

Reason number two is that the elites in the media and in other areas of American life no longer dominate politics and can no longer moderate these divisive forces that pull left and right. The media has become an inciter of "the fight" in politics like baiting a dog. Have you ever seen three political people interviewed when hot issues are covered by CNN or by the networks? No. It is always like a sports metaphor with two teams (or two nasty political activists) - and there can only be one winner.

In the eyes of the media politics is like boxing, fencing, professional wrestling or a cock fight for that matter.

In fact, the red and blue states paradigm is so appealling to the media because it's graphically simple and can be deployed like a major sporting event where you can keep score on how the "teams" are doing. Red and Blue, left and right, liberal and conservative, then become a self-fulfilling prophesy of increasing divisiveness and conflict.

The most telling example of this pathology was the CNN Show Crossfire. The sole purpose was to force guests and hosts to get into conflicts, say nasty things and demean themselves. It's a miracle that guests did not physically launch at each other the way they do on trash shows such as Maury Povich. When I was on during the 2004 Iowa Cacuses the hosts had no interest in information and clarification but instead they wanted me to say nasty things about Iowa and politicians. It was interesting but also not constructive. (Picture above).

So what's the answer?

We need at least four strong and realistic parties - a right wing party, a leftists progressive party, and two moderate parties of some sort. The shape of a square (4 parties in different corners of the quare) is not a confrontational design. A line that runs left-right is by definition bipolar. This could happen if the GOP and Dems implode and other parties attract enough voters so that their candidates get pluralities and win governorships, congressional seats (there is after all one Socialist Congressman!), and maybe even win some presidential races.

My other point has to be that in poll after poll Americans are more more subtly divided than just right and left or liberal and conservative. Yet, those in these "shaded" areas, the subtle blends of red and blue which we are calling the purple Americans have no place else to go.

What are the chances that Democrats and Republicans will be seriously challenged by several mass-based and electorally successful competitors?

Almost none because both parties have so skewed election laws and the format of single-members, winner-take-all districts that third parties and fourth parties havean insurmountable obstacle to overcome. (see alternative representation and voting models in the chapter on campaigns and elections in my book American Government and Politics Today 2006-2007 Edition, Wadsworth Publishing. You can order it from the Amazon link on this blog).

So, enjoy the negative, polarized, conflict-based, politics. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Deep Divisions.

Deep division have now become the hallmark of American national politics. We have all heard endlessly about the "red" (Republican dominated) and "Blue" (Democrat dominated) states.

We also know that the Democrats and Republicans seem to have drawn a line in the sand and can hardly agree on anything.

This week as I write this the Democrats publicly showed their rift when New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Massachussets Democratic Senator John Kerry took diametrically opposed positions on ending us military activities in Iraq. They were speaking to a group of very liberal Democrats in New York and it was interesting to see Sen. Clinton get roundly "boooed" by the crowd when she argued that the US cannot quickly pull out of Iraq. Kerry was cheered when he said the US should start a pull out as quickly as possible.

Clinton represents the "pragmatic" line in the Democratic Party, arguing that the US must stabilize the situation in Iraq and provide continued military support. She argues that to win national elections Democrats have to be "strong" on defense. Kerry has now come out in favor of rapid pull our by American forces and believes that Americans are tired of Iraq and that Democrtas should have a clear alternative to President Bush. He is trying to appel to the more liberal base of the party.

Why is there so much confusion and division in the two parties? If you don't get the right answer came back to my blog and I'll tell you (warning: it's not a pretty picture!)

For students of American politics this is THE spectator sport to watch over the next two years as American move towards the 2008 presidential election. This will be one of the most interesting contests in a generation. Do you know why? - "Since Pres. Eisenhauer" is the clue. - Stay tuned to my blog for this one too.

Get out your scorecard and see how each party divides up on the hard issues such as Iraq, immigration, taxes, health care, and the hot social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It's more fun than American Idol!