Connect with us

Politics

A pandemic of hyper-hypocrisy is infecting American politics | TheHill – The Hill

Published

 on


The U.S. public is irreconcilably divided along partisan lines on virtually every issue across the political spectrum. Even a pandemic that has killed more Americans than died in every war and conflict this nation has fought since the beginning of the last century has divided us. Why?

In part, dating back to the Vietnam War, government and many institutions have become delegitimized. A large majority of Americans have become highly distrustful and dissatisfied with Washington and the failure of repeated administrations to govern wisely and inclusively. The volte face of  President BidenJoe BidenManchin lays down demands for child tax credit: report Abrams targets Black churchgoers during campaign stops for McAuliffe in Virginia Pentagon, State Department square off on Afghanistan accountability MORE, who promised to unite the country and pursue a moderate line and now seems to be embracing a highly progressive agenda, is the latest example of hypocritical leaders abandoning campaign commitments, adding to the distrust.

Hypocrisy is as old as politics. But a dangerous outgrowth has been the creation of a condition of hyper-hypocrisy in American politics that, left to fester, can be more dangerous than perhaps any terrorist wishing the nation ill. The reason is that many politicians believe the only way to overcome these intractable divisions is to seize political power by virtually any means. Biden’s lurch to the left is one mild example. Former President Trump’s “big lie” about winning what was not a stolen election is far more damaging.

To underscore the extent of hyper-hypocrisy, consider this thought experiment. Suppose Donald Trump had won the 2016 presidential election as a Democrat. How would both political parties have behaved? Of course, many would say this scenario is nonsense. But Trump identified “more as a Democrat” not all that long ago.

First, the inversion of reactions to Democrat Trump would have been mind-blowing. Republicans who knew Trump, his character and business practices would have been appalled. Evangelical Christians who have spent the last five years dismissing Trump’s moral failings would have instead portrayed them as repugnant and disqualifying, as they had with Bill Clinton.

That was apparent during the 2016 Republican primary debates in which all of Trump’s opponents were highly critical and disbelieving that Trump could win the nomination or the election.   

In 2009 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellHoyer signals House vote on bill to ‘remove’ debt limit threat Biden signs bill to raise debt ceiling On The Money — Progressives play hard ball on Biden budget plan MORE (R-Ky.) declared that his priority was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. In 2017, he would have similarly sought to wreck Democrat Trump’s presidency. 

Trump loyalists, such as Sens. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzThe Memo: Conservatives change their tune on big government The CDC’s Title 42 order fuels racism and undermines public health Ocasio-Cortez goes indoor skydiving for her birthday MORE (R-Texas) and Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamRepublicans’ mantra should have been ‘Stop the Spread’ Senators preview bill to stop tech giants from prioritizing their own products Democrats fret as longshot candidates pull money, attention MORE (R-S.C.), would have instead been relentlessly attacking him. Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonSen. Ron Johnson hoping for Democratic ‘gridlock’ on reconciliation package Republicans’ mantra should have been ‘Stop the Spread’ Ron Johnson slams DOJ’s investigation of schools, saying it unfairly targets parents MORE (R-Wis.) would have had a field day manufacturing conspiracies with which to pummel Trump. And it’s a sure bet that the infamous Steele dossier on Trump’s alleged wrongdoings in St. Petersburg and his Russian connections would have gotten far more attention by Republicans.

Meanwhile, Democrats would have had a difficult time embracing Trump, but they would have. House Democrats who became the face of the impeachment committees surely would have had radically different opinions of the new Democratic president.

Whether Democrats under Trump would have won control of the House in 2018 or the Senate in 2020 is unknowable. Would, at some stage, the Republican House have begun impeachment proceedings against Trump? Would Jan. 6 have occurred if Democrat Trump had lost in 2020? Would Trump have won a second term if he were a Democrat?

The more perplexing question is whether Democrats would have succumbed to Trump as Republicans have. Who would have been the Democratic equivalents of Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainVirginia race looms as dark cloud over Biden’s agenda  Sinema’s no Manchin, no McCain and no maverick Progressives say go big and make life hard for GOP MORE (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyBennie Thompson not ruling out subpoenaing Trump Anti-Trump Republicans endorsing vulnerable Democrats to prevent GOP takeover Thiel backing Trump-supported challenger to Cheney: report MORE (R-Wyo.)? Under these circumstances, would Republicans have created a resistance movement to oppose Trump? 

A loyal opposition is vital to a functioning democracy. Hypocrisy is always present. Despite promising to tell the truth, presidents dissemble and many lie. Politicians promise one thing and act on others. Yet, today, hyper-hypocrisy appears to be infecting the entire political spectrum. Many blame Trump, whose record of distortions, untruths and outright lies is unmatched in American history. Yet, Trump is more a symptom than a cause of a failing political system.

The only sure cure is a combination of transparency and the triumph of truth and fact. But on the current path, social media wielded by the ultra-cynical or those out to win power regardless of consequence makes hyper-hypocrisy a more serious threat to democracy than perhaps anything our most trenchant adversaries may intend for us.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D, is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the prime author of “shock and awe.” His latest book, due out in the fall, is, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and that World at Large.”

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Study: Politics Outweighed COVID Severity in Reopening Decisions – Inside Higher Ed

Published

 on


The political leaning of the county in which a college or university is located is the factor most closely associated with whether it offered in-person or remote instruction in fall 2020, research released Tuesday shows. The article, published in Springer’s Research in Higher Education, finds that the severity of the pandemic near a college and sociopolitical factors in its state were also associated with institutional decisions on how to offer instruction.

State political factors were a stronger factor for four-year public institutions than for four-year private or community colleges, while county political preferences had a stronger effect on four-year private and two-year public institutions.

“Given that in-person instruction was associated with increased COVID-19 incidence in the local area,” the authors write, “polarization, political identification, and institutions feeling compelled to operate as politicized entities (to stay close to the ‘in-group’) likely made the severity of the pandemic worse. These outcomes are aligned with the general findings [of previous research] that institutions seemed to give more weight to sociopolitical features over pandemic severity when choosing in-person instruction for Fall 2020.”

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Why American Politics Is So Stuck — and What New Research Shows About How to Fix It – POLITICO Magazine

Published

 on


.cms-textAlign-lefttext-align:left;.cms-textAlign-centertext-align:center;.cms-textAlign-righttext-align:right;.cms-magazineStyles-smallCapsfont-variant:small-caps;

Why does American politics feel so stuck these days, with bipartisan bills vanishingly rare and solutions seemingly taking a back seat to constant attacks?

Our newly published research suggests an answer — and maybe a way to get un-stuck.

Most policies are rife with trade-offs. They have an intended outcome and some regrettable side-effects. Our recent studies suggest that political polarization in the United States runs so deep that it leads partisans to see the other side’s intended outcome as a ruse and the side effects as the real intention. In other words, Democrats and Republicans not only disagree about policy matters; they believe the other party’s agenda is intentionally designed to do harm.

We call this tendency the partisan trade-off bias, and it applies to both parties. To a Democrat, the purpose of an environmental policy that reduces carbon emissions, for example, is to preserve the environment, and a corresponding loss of coal mining jobs is an unfortunate side effect. But a Republican, our research finds, might look at that same policy and see a plot to eradicate jobs in the fossil fuels industry. Meanwhile, a Democrat might presume a Republican push to lower corporate tax rates is more about helping the wealthy and hurting the poor than fueling economic growth.

Of course, skepticism about motives is sometimes warranted. But, oftentimes, it is misguided, and the deeper it runs, the harder it is to get anything through the policymaking process. Unless politicians find a way to lessen the effects of the partisan trade-off bias, we’re likely to keep seeing stalemates on important policy issues.

We documented the partisan trade-off bias across five studies using online samples of a total of 1,236 participants, a mix of Republicans and Democrats. As an example, in one of our studies participants were randomly assigned to view a set of policy trade-offs, some proposed by Republicans and some proposed by Democrats. The policies dealt with taxes, environmental regulation, gun control and voting rights. Participants then rated how intentional they perceived the negative side effects of each policy to be. The more participants identified with the Republican Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of the Democratic-proposed policies to be, and the more participants identified with the Democratic Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of Republican-proposed policies to be.

In a nutshell, our studies showed that the negative side effects associated with different policy trade-offs are not interpreted by opponents as side effects at all, but as intended goals of the policy.

To date, the political science literature has shown that political polarization leads partisans not only to dislike each other, but to see the other side increasingly as a threat to the country. Our identification of the partisan trade-off bias reveals a psychological tendency that might help to explain this perception of threat. After all, how can you get along with someone who you perceive as intentionally trying to do harm?

The good news is that by identifying the partisan trade-off bias, our research points a path forward: Policymakers who pay more attention to this bias might be better equipped to achieve compromise. This means that rather than focusing only on the main goal of a policy, they need to communicate clearly to the public what is intentional and what is a regrettable side-effect of that goal.

Fortunately, our studies also suggest this might be achievable. The partisan trade-off bias happens not because people don’t understand a given policy, but because they don’t trust the policymakers who are pushing that policy. We found that the level of trust a person feels toward a policymaker proposing a policy is a crucial driver of the partisan trade-off bias. And when we were able to increase people’s trust in the policymaker in our studies, we saw the partisan tradeoff bias decrease substantially.

Existing research suggests there are many ways politicians can earn others’ trust, but one of the most powerful is also the simplest: making sure people feel their voices are heard and listened to before a policy is announced, including both those inclined to like and dislike a policy. When we told participants in our studies that a policymaker spoke with stakeholders from all sides of the political spectrum before rolling out a proposal, the partisan tradeoff bias subsided.

Practically speaking, these findings suggest that announcing a big policy goal, and then doing press tours and campaigns to tout its benefits, likely does little to build trust. What happens before the policy is announced is crucial to building broad support for the policy. Politicians need to make it clear that they are speaking with and listening to those likely to be affected by a policy’s side effects. In the context of climate policy, a politician might visit coal miners in West Virginia or oil and gas workers in Texas while in the process of formulating a plan to reduce emissions, for example. The more widely the politician can advertise these efforts — across multiple types of media and across the ideological spectrum — the better.

Giving people a voice in the process does not mean they will change their minds about the value of the policy. But it does increase the chances that they will see the policy as a sincere attempt to solve problems rather than a form of hidden malice. That, in turn, can help lower the temperature and de-escalate the cycle of polarization. The same lesson holds for those of us who are not policymakers but ordinary citizens who want to have better conversations about politics. If you think you know what the other side’s real intentions are, think again. What you see as malice might be an unintended side effect. And if you want someone to give you the benefit of the doubt, put in the work of making them feel heard before you make yourself heard.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

A new reason to move: politics – Yahoo Canada Finance

Published

 on


Blue states will get bluer, and red redder, in coming years, as more Americans factor political issues into their relocation decisions and head for places with like-minded tribes.

That’s the forecast from real-estate brokerage Redfin, which included “more migration for political reasons” in its outlook for the housing market in 2022. The deepening political polarization of the country includes new city- and statewide laws likely to attract adherents and repel detractors, driving political issues deeper into community life. Texas this year passed the nation’s strictest anti-abortion law, for instance. A Mississippi anti-abortion law could lead the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal everywhere. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, states will once again be free to set their own abortion statutes, creating a drastic dividing line between permissive and restrictive states.

Another Supreme Court case, involving gun rights, could make it easier to carry concealed weapons in New York and 7 other states, eroding gun-control efforts propagated largely by Democratic governors and mayors. On the other hand, marijuana is now legal in 19 mostly blue and purple states. Cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York are experimenting with police reform meant to cut down on lower-level arrests. Public-school curricula is a new flash point between parents who want racial and social justice taught in schools, and traditionalists who feel threatened by “wokeness.”

A U.S. Supreme Court police officer walks past its building as rulings are expected in Washington, U.S. November 22, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

A U.S. Supreme Court police officer walks past its building as rulings are expected in Washington, U.S. November 22, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The Covid pandemic led to sharp disparities in masking rules, school opening policies and business restrictions among states and cities. That’s on top of longstanding differences in regulation and taxation between traditionally Democratic and Republican states. While there’s nothing new about regional differences in governing styles, policy polarization is making it easier for Americans to live in areas they find ideologically compatible. It’s also getting harder for liberals to find a comfortable enclave in conservative states, and vice versa.

[Click here to get Rick Newman’s stories by email.]

Moving patterns reflect politics

Americans seem increasingly likely to sort themselves into ideological groups by geography. “We know people are leaving blue counties and moving to red counties,” says Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. “I think this will start to happen at the state level and at the neighborhood level. After next year’s midterm elections, we’ll be able to see if neighborhoods become more polarized.”

Up till now, the migration from blue states to red states has largely been driven by affordability. Blue states along the coasts typically have higher living costs and taxation levels than, say southern red states such as Texas and Florida. More and more, however, moving patterns reflect overt political choices.

An October Redfin survey of people who recently moved, for instance, found that 40% said they would prefer or insist on living in a place where abortion is fully legal. The portion taking the opposite view—saying they would prefer or refuse to live in an area where abortion is fully legal—was 32%. It’s not unusual for survey respondents to express strong opinions on abortion, but it may be new for people to factor such views into moving decisions. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe and more states ban or severely restrict abortion, it could become a bigger factor in relocation.

HOUSTON, TEXAS - AUGUST 12: A newly sold home is shown on August 12, 2021 in Houston, Texas. Home prices have climbed during the pandemic as low interest rates and working from home has become more abundant. Home prices around the country continue to surge in the second quarter as strong demand continues to overwhelm the supply of homes for sale. Nationwide, the median single-family existing-home sales price increased by 22.9% in the second quarter. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)HOUSTON, TEXAS - AUGUST 12: A newly sold home is shown on August 12, 2021 in Houston, Texas. Home prices have climbed during the pandemic as low interest rates and working from home has become more abundant. Home prices around the country continue to surge in the second quarter as strong demand continues to overwhelm the supply of homes for sale. Nationwide, the median single-family existing-home sales price increased by 22.9% in the second quarter. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

A newly sold home is shown on August 12, 2021 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

The Redfin survey of movers also gauged attitudes toward other touchy political topics. Larger percentages favored living in areas with liberal policies such as strong voter protections, gender anti-discrimination laws and legal weed. But 23% said they don’t want to live in places with strong anti-discrimination laws, 22% don’t want to live in a state with legal weed, and 16% don’t want to live where there are strong voter protections.

Americans consider many factors when deciding where to live, and some of those factors have political overtones. Many parents base home-buying decisions on the quality of schools, which drives up home prices in the best school districts and creates de facto segregation. The white-flight phenomenon has a similar effect, with whites who can afford to leaving urban areas for places where they consider quality of life better.

But those types of location decisions are based more on family-first attitudes than the liberal-conservative divide that’s taking root now. Americans choose a political tribe when they vote, donate money to political causes and decide which cable-news station to watch. Perhaps it’s only natural that Americans want to live among their political comrades, as well. Like much of America, real-estate listings are trending toward liberal or conservative.  

Rick Newman is the author of four books, including “Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success.” Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman. You can also send confidential tips.

Read more:

Get the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending