Bipolar Disorder causes drastic emotional fluctuations, characterized by "highs" and "lows."
oooOOOooo
The above definition comes from a website devoted to the treatment of psychiatric problems. I am thinking, however, of the "political" kind of "bipolar disorder" that seems to be predominating in our politics these days. I have already done a blog posting on "polarization," and when political polarization goes too far, I think it's fair to call it out as a "disorder."
But.... has political polarization gone too far? I am thinking that the answer is "yes." My reason for saying that, however, is not, as one might expect, caused by my reaction to the incredible and highly personal hostility manifested in the division between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with offensive schoolyard taunts launched daily by our current president, and with massively hostile personal remarks coming from both Republicans and Democrats - directed at persons on the "other side." All of these offensive behaviors are becoming an ever more common phenomenon.
This personal and partisan hostility, ever more frequently expressed in our politics, with almost no restraint, does give any thoughtful person a pause, but as I have already said, I came to the "bipolar disorder" diagnosis from a somewhat different direction. It was an article in Vox that made me think about "bipolar disorder" as the right term to identify what I perceive to be a worrying part of our current politics. The Vox article was titled, "The Three-Way Battle For The Democratic Party."
As the title indicates, Senior Politics Correspondent Andrew Prokop was not commenting on relationships between the Republicans and the Democrats. He was commenting on divisions within the Democratic Party itself, and how those differences might mean that the Democratic Party will not beat out the Republicans in the next round of elections, to recover a majority in at least one House of Congress. As I read the article (which I certainly encourage you to do, too, by clicking the link I have provided), I realized that ordinary citizens are now, pretty much, thinking about politics solely in terms of political parties - as opposed to thinking about politics in terms of policies and programs.
The Republican Party, headed by our current president, seems to want to dismantle and destroy programs and policies that originated long ago, in the 1930s and the 1940s, and that have demonstrated the commitment of the United States to global cooperation and to a government, here at home, that responds to the most pressing of human needs, from housing, to education, to health care. Instead of building upon our past accomplishments, and making further advances, the Republican Party and the Trump Administration are attempting to reverse policies, like those that have led to U.S. supported international health and humanitarian aid programs, that many, if not most, Americans have come to assume are agreed-upon goals which our country should pursue as a matter of course.
But.... (and this is what got me, as I read Prokop's article) the response of a veteran political observer to this situation is not to comment on the specifics of the policies and programs that the Republicans are attempting (often illegally) to eliminate, and to argue why these policies and programs must be defended. Instead, Prokop's article is aimed at diagnosing the Democratic Party's internal functioning, implicitly accepting the idea that American citizens have only two real choices, and that when important policies and programs are threatened, with the support of the Republican Party, the only effective response will have to be to figure out how to get the Democratic Party to regroup and offer a politically-appealing alternative. Of course (and this reinforces the point I am trying to make) Elon Musk suggests that if the Republican Party is headed in the wrong direction, and the Democratic Party is also dysfunctional, the solution is a new political party. Our policy debates come down to this: which "party" will get the most support. Until proven otherwise by Mr. Musk, I think it's fair to say we have only two choices.
I call this a "bipolar disorder," because while political parties are definitely an important part of our political landscape, we, the people, should actually be focusing on the programs and policies we think are needed, and then we should be working to make certain that our "representatives," irrespective of their political party, do what we want, and what we think is best.
If "self-government," usually called "democracy," requires that our national policies accomplish what the majority of the people want, we should, I think, be organizing around the policies and programs that a majority do, in fact, support. Deciding which "party" will govern, as opposed to which things must be done by our government, is a transfer of our authority, as citizens, to political parties that are all too easily commandeered by "partisans" who make their own, personal interests paramount.
Relying on "parties" to get us what we want has gotten us where we are. Like I say, I think that's proven to be "bipolar disorder."
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/mental-disorders/bipolar-disorder/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!