Common Sense: Politics Should Not Trump All

In recent years, we have seen increasing evidence of Americans choosing where they live in no small part because of the politics of the jurisdiction.  Progressives flock to the two coasts, as well as large cities throughout the country, that share their views.  Others increasingly flee those places in search of a location where their views prevail.

It would never be my argument to reduce the ability of our citizens to decide where they wanted to live.  As to the politics of it all, when we get to a point where serious people are discussing sections of states seceding to become part of another state, perhaps we need to think long and hard about what is happening to our country.

For much of our history, our society was pluralistic in nature.  A multitude of groups, inside and outside of partisan politics (unions, environmentalists, business, etc.), collectively produced the society we lived in.  Noted pluralist Robert Dahl once commented, “Politics is a sideshow in the great circus of life.”  His argument is most people spend their time on matters other than politics (work, family, health, faith, etc.). 

My personal history reflected this pluralistic approach to things.  We raised our four children outside of Washington, D.C., in Arlington, Virginia (otherwise known as the Socialist Republic of Arlington).  In 2000, mine was the only precinct that voted for George W. Bush.  In 2004, Bush won the Commonwealth by approximately 10 points.  Arlington went for Kerry by 25 points, meaning we were 35 points off the overall average.  Oh, and no precincts voted for Bush.  At the same time, while I jousted with my neighbors about politics, what we had in common—raising kids, fighting traffic, etc.—made living there a pleasure for most of those 20-plus years. 

This variation in points of view led to a nation where many opinions were present at any given time, largely independent of ideological or partisan politics.  This is what led famous House Speaker Tip O’Neill to pronounce “all politics are local.”  All this meant was local considerations were at the top of the political food chain.  Much of this had to do with the technology associated with communications.  Internet service in the 19^th Century was not good.

Fast forward.  In 2008, Bill Bishop (full disclosure, he is a friend) published The Big Sort.  He details that, starting in the 1960s, people began choosing to live with others who share their political point of view, turning the notion of pluralism upside down.  As a society, Bishop emphasized research clearly indicating that when like-minded people gather together, their views become more extreme.  

It is important to note that this phenomenon coincided with dramatic changes in how we communicate with one another.  1998 was the year high-speed Internet became widely available in the United States.  Previous generations lived in a world where communications were primarily driven by geography, meaning what you saw, read, and heard depended on where you lived.  Now, the information ecosystem is driven by affinity-based information being shared.  You watch MSNBC.  I watch Fox.  The crucial political outcome, I would argue, is that almost all politics have become nationalized. 

Now, we see self-selection on steroids.  Counties in Eastern Oregon are working hard to become part of Idaho, feeling that how the people living in Portland and Eugene see things is so foreign and objectionable to them that they want to leave.  Oregon is not an isolated state.  In Illinois, some counties on the eastern side are working to become part of Indiana, while some counties on the western side would prefer to be part of Iowa.  For them, the influence and power of the Chicago footprint is too much to take.  Even in New York, there are those attempting to get separation and independence from the influence of New York City and the surrounding areas.  

At some level, you have to appreciate the legitimacy of the feelings of those seeking to live in a new state.  The insistence of progressives to agree with them without deviation drives me crazy as well.

The political impact of all this self-selection is that Blue States become bluer while Red States become redder.  Lest there be any doubt, 33 of the 99 state legislative chambers have veto-proof majorities (supermajorities).  This translates into each becoming more extreme in their politics.  The Blue States and the major cities embrace Sanctuary Cities.  Red States pass laws making going out of state for an abortion a crime.

One can be for the fair treatment of immigrants without agreeing rounding up criminals is a bad idea.  You can even be for a national standard restricting abortion to rape, incest, and the life of the mother (my position) without believing those who currently choose to have one have committed a crime if they cross state lines from a state where abortion is highly restricted to a state where it is not.

It is no secret my politics are driven by conservative populism, and I am happy to loudly support President Trump and his Administration.  Like anyone else, I prefer winning to losing.  Still, it feels as though we have lost something important to the basic fabric of the nation when we talk about creating state borders based on picking political boundaries.

Common Sense argues we need more pluralism in our politics.  I am content to believe anything resembling a fair fight between ideas will have my side prevail more times than not.  As I once told a group of boys I was coaching at the time: “We don’t have to cheat to win.”  A rigged game is no game at all.  I will take my chances in a fair fight.  Will progressives agree to one?