A Nation Divided

A Nation Divided-The Role of Ideology in Contemporary American Politics

By Wentong Zheng

The drama of America's presidential campaign of the year 2000, which ended with George W. Bush winning the White House through contentious legal battles, imprinted enduring-and sometimes highly emotional-memories on people's minds. As the dust settled and the debates about campaign justice abated, the Americans once seemed to be ready to heal the wounds inflicted in the divisive contest. Mindful of the controversy revolving around the legitimacy of his presidency and the fact that he commanded fewer popular votes than his rival, President Bush vowed in his inauguration to act as a uniter and to change the partisan tone of American politics. However, the unfolding of the country's destiny under its new leaderships so far does not seem to augur well for political reconciliation. A string of recent high-profile legislative wrestles and public policy debates indicate that the Americans are still faced with the same political outlook as they were before-America has become, and will continue to be, a nation that is deeply divided along almost every dimension.

People from other political and social contexts cannot help but ask: what is going on in America? Is America's politics synonymous with unpredictable party struggles and endless hassles over trivial issues? Are there any ideological dividing lines among fighting parties, or is it merely a political tactic to take a stance just opposite to that of your foe?

The goal of this article is to discern the ideological forces underlying America's political landscapes. There may be an abuse of vocabulary here and a clarification is due. "Ideology" in this article should not be construed as a set of idealized values held by individuals irrespective of their economic and social circumstances. When saying that some values are "ideological", we mean that there is a consistent pattern of values that makes a host of political phenomena intelligible, even if those values are held simply because they are perceived to confer monetary or other kinds of benefits.

I. Common Ground

The key to understanding America's politics is to appreciate America's cultural background. Contrary to collectivism or hierarchism of the Confucian society in which most of the Chinese are born and raised, the United States is basically founded on the basis of individualism and opportunity egalitarianism. Without regard to their political affiliations, the Americans share a common sense that people have certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. To better protect these rights and to enforce justice in society, the government is then empowered through the consents of the people. It is helpful to clarify the relationship between government and people as understood by the Americans: people can do something not because government allows them to; Rather, people have the rights to do something in the first place and then they form government to protect their rights. For instance, people enjoy the basic human rights enumerated in the Constitution not because the Constitution so stipulates; on the contrary, people have the rights first and then there is the Constitution to institutionalize these rights.

Hence the very principle by which the government of the United States is framed: limited government. However weird it might otherwise be, a publicly acceptable political thought would not afford to challenge the check-and-balance doctrine enshrined in the Constitution. It is in this sense that the Americans unite together. However, when it comes to the question of to what extent government should be limited, it is more accurate to characterize America as a divided nation than as a united one. The different understanding of the role of government, together with different social values, constitutes major competing ideological blocs with which every politically informed American aligns himself or herself.

II. Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian

By and large, the Americans would identify themselves as either "pro-conservative" or "pro-liberal", if you asked them about their political viewpoints. Literally, "conservative" refers to the economic and social values associated with traditions, whereas "liberal" refers to the ideas deviating from conservative ones.

Quite counter-intuitive to Chinese intellectuals, "conservative" in contemporary America means, economically, less government and more market elements, whereas "liberal" denotes more government intervention. This can be traced back to the political and economic thoughts of Europe, from which the earliest immigrants to America originated. The "classical" economic theory of Europe advocated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo depicts ideal human society as a society free of government meddling. The "invisible hand" of market, it says, will guarantee efficient allocation of scarce resources. In this spirit, American conservatism believes that the economic role of government should be restricted to as small a scope as possible. It advocates less taxation, less government spending, and less government intervention in economy. In contrast, the Liberals, while admitting the general efficiency of market, believe that conservative economic ideals ignore the possibility of market failures and cannot deal with economic and social injustice. As a result, they argue that government should jump in to address the problems. Relatively speaking, the Liberals stand for more taxation from the wealthy, more government spending for the poor, and bigger government roles in society.

Besides economic affairs, another area where Conservatives and Liberals are deeply divided is in the sphere of social affairs. Generally the Conservatives cherish traditional social values such as marriage, family, and faith, while the Liberals are more tolerant towards unorthodox values such as abortion and gay rights.

You may also be familiar with the word "libertarian", which is gaining steam in America today, particularly among young people. In a word, Libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal. They strongly believe in individual freedom, both economically and socially, and believe that government should be inactive basically in any areas. People have the right to do whatever they want, they argue, provided that they do not hurt others. Their long-standing clamor for decriminalizing drug use is probably what they are best known for in America today and that concern tops their political agenda. To Libertarians, it is people's inalienable right to choose to use drugs, and nobody else is morally justified to make decisions on their behalf. Furthermore, if government bans drugs, those who desire them would have to take illegal actions to acquire them, leading to serious crimes in many cases. The same can be said of abortion and prostitution. One point worth mentioning about Libertarians is that they support unorthodox or even heretic social values not necessarily because they themselves are the practitioners of those values, but because they believe it is not the business of government to force people to conform to accepted values.

For expositional purposes, the foregoing ideological divisions are cast in the most contrasting terms. The actual political spectrum, however, is not as clear-cut as the above analysis might suggest. Some ideological patterns defying the conservative-liberal taxonomy may prevail in many contexts, and there is often difference in the degree to which people consider themselves conservative, liberal, or libertarian. America's political reality, for practical purposes, perhaps can be best characterized by a continuum of ideological types stretching from the far left end of the spectrum, the extreme Liberals, to the far right end of the spectrum, the extreme Conservatives.

III. Republicans and Democrats

It is well known that there are two major political parties in the United States: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. In line with the above analysis, the two parties can be thought of representing the two ideological fronts mentioned above respectively: the Conservatives and the Liberals.

How the two parties took on their current ideological looks would be a long story on which the space limitation of this article does not allow us to elaborate. Consistent ideological patterns, however, can be detected to be underlying the major political duels between the two parties. The Republican Party generally advocates market-oriented solutions to economic and social problems and is a bastion of conservative social values, whereas the Democratic Party champions liberal economic and social agendas. The divergent ideologies of the two parties to a large extent delineate the framework in which most of the public policy debates are carried out in America today, and their different policy opinions concerning some important issues can be summarized as follows:

1.Taxation and Government Spending. As can be deduced from Republicans' free-market ideologies, Republicans favor small government that entails reduced taxation levels or tax refunds whenever situations permit. The Democrats, on the contrary, place emphasis on some priority government spending items. Recently, America's federal budget is projected to accumulate a surplus between $4.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion between 2001 and 2010. Choices regarding how to use the surplus play a central role in America's current political life. In February 2001, President Bush submitted his $1.6 trillion, across-the-board tax cut plan to Congress for approval. In response, Democrats criticize Bush's plan for giving a windfall to the wealthy and jeopardizing the overall fiscal soundness of America's economy. They support a much smaller tax cut and argue for using the surplus to pay down the national debt first.

2. Social Security. Of the projected federal budget surplus, a large portion is the surplus generated by the Social Security system. However, as the Baby Boomers swell the ranks of retirees over the next three decades, the system would eventually become insolvent in 2037 if no actions were taken today. At the core of the Republican plan for saving Social Security is to allow individual workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, a clearly market-oriented solution. The Democratic prescriptions for this problem are somewhat related to their spending priority in favor of paying down the national debt. For example, Al Gore's Social Security plan in his presidential bid suggested crediting the interest savings from eliminating the debt to the Social Security Trust Fund, thereby extending the life of the system. It would also create new incentives for low-income workers to save and invest outside the Social Security system by offering them as much as $3 in government matching fund for every dollar they save.

3. Education. The sliding performance of America's schools is the issue that concerns politicians and citizens the most. Common elements in the education blueprints put forward by Republicans and Democrats include their bipartisan supports for more federal funding and regular testing of students. Compared to the Democrats' plan, however, the Republicans' plan takes on more free-market flavors through advocating increased education flexibility for states and, more controversially, the voucher plan, which gives parents the option of pulling out money from failing public schools and sending their children to private schools.

4. Environmental Issues. Out of concerns for protecting human habitats for future generations, Democrats are well known for the "greenness" of their policies which, in many cases, are carried out to the detriment of business interests. In contrast, Republicans favor less strict, pro-business environmental standards partly because of business lobbying pressures and partly because of their free-market ideals. In March 2001, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge and said his administration would not seek to regulate power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide. One week later, the Environmental Protection Agency of the Bush administration said that it intended to withdraw a new drinking-water regulation approved by the Clinton administration.

5. Foreign Policy. Interestingly enough, the same pattern defining the ideological difference between Republicans and Democrats can be fruitfully extended to the area of America's foreign policy. Democrats, or the Liberals, believe it is in the best interests of the United States to iron out problems outside America's national border by participating in resolving regional conflicts, engaging with potential enemies, and providing foreign aids to needy countries. Yet Republicans, or the Conservatives, believe that America should concentrate on reinforcing its own national defense systems while remaining stiff towards adversaries. If we regard America as the "government" and other countries "citizens" of the world, the Democratic foreign policy can be metaphorically thought of as the "government" taking a hands-on approach in "governing", while the Republican version argues for a laissez faire mode. It is therefore not hard to understand why Republicans are big fans of the National Missile Defense plan and why they oppose involving American troops in peace-keeping missions around the globe.

6. Abortion and Gay Rights. These are the issues on which Americans disagree with each other because of their different social values. In general, Republicans are "pro-life", regarding abortion as legitimate killing of unborn babies; Democrats are "pro-choice", emphasizing women's rights to choose whether or not to have children. On his first full working day in office, President Bush moved to block the American aids to international family planning groups that make abortion and abortion counseling available. In a similar vein, Republicans are not as tolerant towards gays as Democrats are.

7. Gun control. This issue has been constantly in the spotlight recently because of several massive school shootings in America. The Americans deem the right to bear and use arms a basic constitutional right. However, people disagree with each other with regard to whether and to what extent guns should be restricted. Democrats are strongly in favor of more restrictive measures on guns, such as three business days' background check for gun purchasers, while Republicans regard stringent gun control as an outright intrusion into individual freedom. If government unduly restricts access to guns, Republicans argue, it would result only in law-abiding citizens losing self-defense capability, while criminals would get guns by illegal means anyway.

With the above difference sketched, it is more important to note that people's economic and social status in society plays very important roles in determining their ideological inclinations. The low-income class, labor unions, women, immigrants, minority and other underrepresented groups are more apt to be economically liberal and vote for the Democratic Party, because they will benefit more from increased welfare spending and government's action to promote their social standing. The middle class, corporate executives, and the wealthy are more likely to be economically conservative and vote for the Republican Party, because they will benefit more from tax cut and free-market economy. The Libertarians, who are economically conservative and socially liberal, are more likely to vote for the Republican Party, probably because they place more weights on their economic interests than on their social values. So what Karl Marx said more than one hundred years ago still roughly holds in America today: the ideology is determined by economic substratum.

IV. The News Media and Think Tanks

Mass news media in general and newspapers in particular enjoy a pivotal role in American political life and they take prides in their objectiveness and integrity. That is true to a large extent-we may not detect even the slightest bias in the news coverage of partisan issues in American media. However, if we turn our attentions to their opinion sections, such as "Editorial", "Op-Ed", and "Letter to Editor", we can find out their editorial stances quite easily. A close examination of American newspapers would reveal that they are also deeply divided along partisan lines.

Among the major newspapers, The Wall Street Journal is strongly conservative and thus strongly pro-Republican. The New York Times and The Washington Post, on the other hand, are pro-liberal. Two smaller newspapers, The Washington Times and The New York Post, are well known for being pro-conservative, and The Economist, though based in Britain, is the most influential libertarian outpost in America. It is also worth noting that in almost all of the big cities in America, you can find two major competing newspapers: one liberal, and the other conservative.

The same logic applies to America's think tanks, although most of them claim to be non-partisan. For example, the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.'s largest think tank, is pro-liberal. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, the second and third largest think tanks in Washington, D.C., are conservative and libertarian respectively. The Hoover Institution of Stanford University and the Economics Department of University of Chicago are staunch advocates of conservative economic values, whereas the Family Research Council is a steadfast supporter of conservative social values. While the list can go on and on, the rule is that we can always discern a think tank's ideological bias despite its claim to the contrary.

V. The Third Way

While the conservative-liberal taxonomy brings to light a large portion of America's political driving forces, attempts to incorporate everything in this framework will prove overreaching. The last decades witnessed tremendous efforts to create viable third parties alternative to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, and the two major parties also saw within themselves increasingly influential trends to assimilate opposing elements from each other.

However, the efforts to create third parties have yet to yield political clout. The most visible third parties in America today are probably the Reform Party and the Green Party. Formed by the billionaire Ross Perot and his followers to capitalize on his historic victory in the 1992 presidential campaign, the Reform Party aims to reform the dark sides of America's politics and its ideology was initially tilted towards a Libertarian one. However, as the far-right, "isolationist" Pat Buchanan defected from the Republican Party and sought presidential nomination of the Reform Party in 2000, the conflicts between the conservative and libertarian wings of the party finally led to the party being broken in two. Ralph Nader, the presidential candidate of the Green Party who advocates liberal economic and environmental agendas and draws wide supports from some traditionally democratic states, fell short of netting five percent of votes which is required to qualify for federal campaign funds in the next presidential campaign. Of all the third parties, the Libertarian Party boasts a long history and the largest number of public offices held by any third party members, but their radical policy suggestions, such as eliminating income tax altogether, prevented themselves from acquiring broadly based supports nationwide.

Ironically, the Third Way movement made the greatest strides within the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the past decade. The democratic version of the Third Way is best represented by the "New Democrats" movement initiated by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a national network of elected Democratic officials who are loyal to the progressive policies of the Democratic Party but, unlike the traditional Democrats representing the interests of labor unions, favor free trade, fiscal discipline and market-based solutions. The past chairs of the DLC include former President Bill Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, and it played crucial roles in the passage in Congress of several high-profile free-trade bills, including the one granting permanent normal trade relations to China. The Republican version of the Third Way can be best captured by President Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" policies. President Bush asserts that his party is compassionate towards the less fortunate while remaining conservative. In addition to proposing policies directed towards improving the well being of low-income people, he also appointed several minorities to high-level positions in his administration to neutralize the negative public image of the Republican Party as a "white" party.

VI. Concluding Remarks

A question that will naturally follow the above presentations is why America could manage to maintain superb political stability despite deep ideological divisions. This can probably be attributed to America's political culture that allows people to be credibly constrained by the Constitution and the rule of law. A full-blown analysis, however, is not within the scope of this article and will be left for future research.

(The author is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Economics, Stanford University. An earlier version of this article was published in the Renmin University Overseas Alumni Association's newsletter, No. 1.)