Slicing the Two Americas

Last week, in writing that Hillary Clinton was as uninspiring as she was, in part because she wasn't saying anything at all, I got a bit into the fact that the left and the right don't seem to be speaking to the same things -- certainly not in recognition of what people care about.

I suppose that the leftist voter probably thinks that he cares about income inequality, gay marriage, global warming, black lives not mattering, bakers not catering gay weddings, and that sort of thing, because he has been browbeaten by the media and the left to believe that the fact that those things exist are why he doesn't have a good job, can't pay his bills, and fears an invasion by ISIS.  As if fixing income inequality is going to get him a better job.

So let me credit occasional guest columnist Ed Fenstermacher for a note a few days ago in response, actually, to a different column:

"Your article ... points to an issue that has become increasingly worrisome to me.  We seem to be becoming two Americas (or maybe more) so completely that we don’t even agree on what the issues are anymore.  When Kennedy and Nixon debated, they differed in style and approach, but I believe it was a given that we wanted America to be safe from foreign threat and for the economy to grow.  They differed on "how", but not on "what."  Carter and Reagan certainly disagreed about how we should obtain energy, but neither of them disputed the need for it.  And so on until at least 2004.   

"But it all changed with Obama in 2008, and I think it started changing before the election.  He really has fundamentally transformed America, to the point where his party cares only about things that I don’t care a whit about.  Income inequality (not poverty).  Transgender bathroom and locker room availability.  Not hurting the feelings of enemies who have publicly sworn to kill us all.  Penalizing success.  Freedom from religion, except for the new churches of environmentalism, global warming, and secular humanism.

"Then there are the things I care about: economic growth, over-regulation of not just the economy but every facet of our lives, freedom of religion, security against foreign invasion whether by armies or illegal aliens, security against terrorism, balancing the federal budget and reducing the debt to a manageable level, getting entitlements under control, having a simple and fair tax system, not penalizing success.

"It’s kind of like the Tower of Babel again, except we nominally understand the same words."

You simply cannot argue with that, and it plays massively into the ongoing presidential campaign.  It isn't just that Donald Trump is offering a lot of easy solutions to the problems that matter to most of us; it is that he is talking about them at all.  He takes credit for getting us talking about illegal immigration and, frankly, he should.  The Democrats don't talk about it because they're afraid we'll shut down a spigot of future Democrat voters.  The Republican leaders, to some degree, don't talk about it because they're afraid we'll shut down a spigot of future cheap labor.

Do you get it?  In most cases, the left and right are talking about (and running for office on) completely different issues; ironically, on immigration if it weren't for Trump neither side would talk about it.  At the same time, illegal immigration is causing huge demands on strapped governments to educate and hospitalize illegals and their illegal families; and their huge numbers and the willingness of enough of them to work for a living not only drives down labor costs, but keeps (particularly) black unemployment at catastrophic rates.

But I actually digress.

There are two sets of voters.  It's fascinating; I would like to hope that my liberal friends at least believe that I do indeed care about those things Ed mentioned above because I believe them to be significant problems, the resolution of which would make the country better.  I really hope they do.

At the same time, though, I don't believe the liberal voter really believes that all those special-interest things are going to make the country better.  I imagine that liberal voters vote that way out of a sense of obligation ("my mother was a Democrat"), indoctrination in college (where the mid-to-late-teen need to fit in morphs to being a political motivator as well as social) or of not wanting to appear heartless or something.  Come on, Michael Brown was a pot-smoking convenience store robber who rushed a cop, tried to steal his gun and then got shot when he rushed the cop again.  This constitutes the basis for "black lives matter"?

So you have one part of America believing that we need to simplify government and streamline it, and that will ease the burden on the economy, create jobs and lift the middle class a lot and the poor somewhat.  Another part of America is exercised because a bakery in Indiana prefers not to sell a cake for a gay wedding.  I couldn't possibly explain any better how much liberals and conservatives are ships passing in the night.

Sometime this fall, we will start having presidential debates between the parties.  You mark my words, if you can turn off the rest of your filters and just look at one of the debates asking "Are they even sensing the same problems?", you'll decide that no, they aren't.  And I'm sure the questions won't help either.

It will indeed be like the Tower of Babel, except that it isn't the language that's the problem.  It's the reason to use it.  And one side ought not even bother.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.