Savvy adults expect political campaign rhetoric to be populist, overblown and simplistic. The extraordinary degree of that in this presidential campaign is the consequence of the range of extremism in the current field. On the far left is Bernie Sanders, a geriatric, dithering, unabashed socialist. On the far who-knows-what is Donald Trump, a churlish, egomaniacal demagogue with a poor grasp of public policy.
How about a dose of political reality? Let’s start with the pretense that anyone, as president (or anything else), is going to reinvent fundamental political dynamics. Not going to happen. “We the people” as a unified collective doesn’t exist. Different people want different things from government. People on the left want more of it, especially for their “entitlement” programs. Those on the right want less of it, except for national defense.
This is the great public divide, reflected in congressional gridlock. The low public approval rating of Congress is misleading. Democrats disapprove of congressional Republicans standing in the way of their legislative agenda and vice versa for Republicans. If one party were to have its own way, the approval rating of Congress would soar as its coalition would be overjoyed at the outcome.
Even with a majority in Congress, Republicans haven’t “betrayed” their party’s base. Given the power of the presidential veto and the two-thirds majority of Congress required to override it, a rollback of Obamacare or other major Democrat victories wasn’t possible. The best Republicans could do was stymie further damage, which they’ve done.
Of the nation’s 435 congressional districts in the House, only about 10 percent are truly competitive. The rest, year in and year out, are solidly the property of either Democrats or Republicans. And the agenda of their respective electoral coalitions will be pursued by those they elect. Unaffiliated voters can hop on one bandwagon or the other, cast a futile vote for a minor party, or not bother voting at all. We have a two-party system, which will continue.
The so-called party “establishments” reflect the will of their respective mainstreams. Sanders may thrill the Democrats’ radical left-wing faction but Hillary Clinton will win the nomination as the choice of its liberal mainstream. The Freedom Caucus is a doctrinaire ultra-conservative faction of Republicans in the House, comprised of members who are elected in solidly conservative districts. So they can afford to be uncompromising, which is fine with their constituents.
But they account for less than a fifth of the 246 House Republicans. They have some influence, but are too few to run the show. In most districts, constituents elected right-center Republicans. If they’re the “establishment” then so are the majority of Republican voters that put them there.
Political parties that aspire to majority status, the locus of power in any legislature, will necessarily include an ideological mix. For example, Rep. Diana DeGette represents Denver, a Democrat stronghold. A Republican can’t win there. That district routinely elects ultra-liberals. Rep. Doug Lamborn in Colorado Springs is a staunch conservative, a good fit for his Republican constituents, in a seat that Democrats can’t win. I’m glad to have Lamborn in my party, but his faction of the Republican coalition, including the Freedom Caucus, can’t be the tail that wags the dog.
This is politics. It’s practiced similarly and universally among nations. The term “establishment” has become an overly broad generalization, a meaningless cliché, a self-indulgent, simplistic epithet employed by media opportunists, firebrands and angry and frustrated outliers on the extremes of left and right to stigmatize those who understand and are constrained by the legislative process and stubborn political realities.
Sure, the nature of the democratic process is frustrating. Therefore, what?
In my next, related column, I’ll deal with populist delusions about lobbyists and the influence of money in politics.
Mike Rosen is a KOA News Radio personality.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
