Politics and divisiveness

Xpatriated Texan asked about political divisiveness.

Our political system is based on divisiveness, assuming (correctly) that inevitable differences of political opinion need to be regularly tested in elections. If you run for office, you are being divisive - you are trying to take political support from someone else, dividing their support.

All political entities (not just government - busineses, churches, any organization or community) embody a degree of divisiveness. It's human nature for groups to define themselves in skewed and self-serving terms of us (the good, well-motivated guys) vs. them (the morally challenged folks 'way over there). However, there is a point at which political division becomes destructive. This is best understood by starting from the opposite end of the spectrum - political unity and inclusiveness.

Political unity and inclusiveness is, unfortunately, often a byproduct of tragedy. Natural disasters, fires, and wars often result in periods of unity. The weeks after 9/11 were an extraordinary time of unity and inclusiveness, when differences were put aside to meet common needs. Such periods of unity usually pass with the events that brought them.

Political unity can also result from political achievement - pretty much everyone does love a winner. Achievements such as the passing of a major political initiative, victory in war, development of public works such as schools and parks, or the arrival of prosperous times, generally bless politicians with periods of unity (aka political capital). Savvy politicians reinvest that unity/capital into new initiatives in the hope of growing the desire to be included in popular achievements. This is the basis for the best and most constructive political power. Presidents such as Clinton and Reagan knew how to maximize and reinvest the power that came from such achievements.

Practicing the politics of division can also be a means to power, although that path tends to limit one's long-term political opportunities (just ask Al Sharpton). This tactic is usually most heavily employed by those who have little political power, and have no achievements on which to build an empowerment base. At the extreme, the practice of such politics can result in cults and dictatorships. German Nazism came into power as a result of divisive politics.

This sort of politics, at its worst, employs greatly exaggerated characterizations of those inside and outside its dividing lines. The Nazis, for example, drew heavily on warped portrayals of Aryan wholesomeness and non-Aryan acts of cowardice and betrayal.

[The Nazis were an interesting example of the power of division. They were able to rise swiftly into power because other German political groups were themselves extremely divided. The 'us against them' tactics used by the Nazis to gain power sought to unite fractured German political elements by dividing Germany from the rest of the world (portraying the country as under attack from external forces). Once government control had been achieved, the tactic evolved into one of division against 'weak' and/or 'disloyal' Germans (famously the Jews), leveraged against new 'inclusionary' manifestations (invading and annexing neighboring countries to 're-unite Germans').]

A group practicing divisive politics, then, is (a) a group not building a reputation based on achievement, and (b) a group drawing extreme conclusions regarding the motivations of those within and outside the group, as a means to bind the group together.

On that basis, Soares' group, aka the Marsh campaign, is clearly more divisive than Roberts' campaign. In all its campaign literature to date, the only 'achievement' they point to is a pay to play law that, by the group's own admission, does not work. (Reading their materials, one would think Marsh had not even been office these past four years - or in Soares' case, 6.)

In regards to (b): the discourse emanating from those affiliated with this campaign never rises above bitter demagoguery. An excerpt from a May 24th email blast:

"David Roberts has spent almost a million dollars in an attempt to secure a big fat early retirement pension. If he is reelected he will get the 25 years of public service necessary to qualify for early retirement. If he stays through the entire term and raises his salary 10 % to $ 150,000 (what's to stop him?), then his pension will be around $ 76K, less a few percent for early retirement, plus cost of living increases. He will start collecting it at age 53 instead of at the normal retirement age of 60. This means he will collect an additional half million dollars if he is reelected. Is it any wonder they have been so nasty? Remember, these are the same people who did "Toss the Midget". People, including public employees, should be reminded that he's done all this to line his own pocket with an annual pension that is larger than the salary of many people."

Contempt is directed not only at their political opponent, but at anyone not on their side of their dividing line, as shown in this appalling email (dated April 23):

"...nearly everybody agrees that our public schools need improvement... Newcomers like me, almost by definition, are better-educated than these home-grown dummies [referring to Marsh's political opponents and their supporters]. ...Remember, Dave [our mayor] was born and raised in our fair city, which almost by definition makes him dumber than most Americans."

No doubt Soares and Marsh would disavow these emails if publicly confronted with them. (Indeed, the second email expressly disavows any connection with any campaign - even as it steers readers to the Marsh site.) But within the Soares/Marsh group such rhetoric is tacitly approved and encouraged. Soares, leading by example, has long been known for his anonymous hit-and-run accusations. Such propaganda motivates and holds the troops together. Roberts' media strategy against Marsh, alluded to in the first email, was not designed to pump up his backers (as the Marsh campaign would admit, Roberts' supporters have other motivations for supporting him). Roberts' lackluster campaign messages (and attacks on Marsh) were analyzed here.

As the runoff comes to a close, this divisive circle will be completed when the local paper gets the usual letters from the Marsh campaign condemning the other side's 'filthy campaign tactics' while lauding their own 'clean campaign'. In practicing the politics of division, it's as important to characterize the faithful as saints as it is to villify one's opponents.

If Marsh is right in describing Roberts' camp as a haven for the town's developers, then Roberts is on soild ground in painting Marsh's camp as an incubator for embittered, myopic misanthropes.

It's no wonder the vast majority of voters avoided the election altogether, and that only a third who did vote opted for either candidate. Hoboken's citizens were holding out for better choices.

{PART OF A SERIES: The 2005 Hoboken municipal election}

Categories: Local, Local blogging, Hoboken, New+Jersey, Politics, Local politics