The political divide in the United States is not remotely close to that leading to the Civil War. In the 1850s, Americans struggled to agree on the meaning of the “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL,” clause in the Declaration of Independence. When that document was drafted, a strong statement on slavery was initially included by Thomas Jefferson. To get the document approved by all 13 states, that clause was deleted. From the inception of the movement for independence, one segment of the nation where slavery drove the economy, collided with the rest of the country where owning another man was an abomination. There were other differences between the citizens, but most of those could be compromised; slavery could not.
Today, we struggle to compromise even on what historically would be minor differences. The congress and even state legislatures find themselves dug in, supporting issues that many disagree with and that they personally do not really care about. How did this happen?
Two things fundamentally changed American politics. (And similar things have made political compromise difficult in most modern democracies.) First, is the demand of the media and some of the public for total transparency in government. Second, is the rise of social media and fierce competition among traditional media. How have these two changes driven division?
In the fight for ratings, traditional media has forgone simple reporting of events and shifted to commentary on those events. Much of what we call news today is more opinion than factual reporting. Media platforms have embraced small segments of society who have strong feelings to cement their ratings base. They have retooled newsrooms to assure that they do not isolate that base. Social media has given even tiny segments of society a megaphone to scream their values. The combination of opinion reporting and opinion social media amplifies many issues way beyond their importance to the general public.
In the legislative bodies, transparency has taken this media shift and turned it into an impossible situation. As late as the 1980s, legislators could get together in smoky rooms and work out compromise, horse-trade, with give and take to arrive, not at consensus, but what it took to bring differing sides together. But today, any effort to get away from the scrutiny of the media to reconcile differences, lands a legislator in a media world where they are portrayed as traitors or worse yet, evil.
In my book, The Dragon, The Eagle And The Jaguar (DEJ), all three countries, China, the US, and Mexico find themselves forced to use clandestine means to solve a problem that should be easy to work out. But in the politics of each country, leadership runs the risk of being labeled traitors to their own nation if they are seen working too closely with another nation. The result, just like in our domestic politics, is posturing to satisfy small groups who are screaming the loudest. But unlike international disputes like that in DEJ, where off the record small group solutions are possible, in domestic politics, the demand for transparency and the media’s catering to small constituencies make this type of resolution political poison.