Are you exasperated by the partisan bickering and gridlock in Washington that continues despite the best efforts of an enlightened, forward-looking President? What about the ideological rancor within the California legislature leading to over three months of an embarrassing budget stalemate, while we teetered toward bankruptcy, in the face of the largest state budget deficit in California history, a disastrous $41 billion?
In both instances, we averted driving off a cliff. But just barely. And how much time, money and resources did we waste in the process?
Why must government move at a snail's pace, if at all? Why do politicians fight with such ferocity over insignificant minutiae, generating an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation in Capitals the nation over? Why does so-called "bipartisanship" fail time and again?
The Post Partisan
Divisive partisan politics at both state and federal levels in this country are the remnants of a social rupture that began with the counterculture of the 1960s and subsequently deepened, resulting in what many refer to as the "culture wars" -- bitter and emotional disputes over race, class, and religion. Political ideologies crystallized around the extreme positions in these wars as politicians staked out their positions in the 1970s and beyond, exploiting the divide at every turn.
Baby Boomers responded to divided politics by taking sides. Generation X responded with apathy (if not cynicism) and withdrawal. But a new generation of Americans, referred to by some as the Millennial Generation, is doing something different: moving beyond the old divisions.
Millennials reject the old ideological oppositions -- big government versus small government, free-market versus Keyensian, liberal versus conservative -- as obsolescent, counterproductive and antithetical to emerging American viewpoints in the 21st Century. As Eric Greenberg found in his research, Millenials, loosely defined as as the 94 million Americans born since the 1980s, tend to be "more accepting of gender equality, gay rights, racial blending, immigration and divergent political views than any other generation," regardless of religious or party affiliation. If you had to place Millennials on the ideological continuum, you'd want to stop center-left. Their political coming-of-age has a lot to do with Barack Obama.
Millennials favor diversity of viewpoints over false dichotomies, change over the status quo, common sense over ideology, and tolerance over testiness. But most important for the Millennial, when the costs of inaction become greater than the costs of action, we act! Boldly and decisively.
In describing this generation Neil Howe and the late Bill Strauss found that most of its members had been formed by parents and teachers focusing on cooperation, teamwork and "zero tolerance" of risky, offensive, intolerant or violent behavior. The tone of the debate is particularly important to Millenials. Addressing the now-infamous rant by CNBC's Rick Santelli criticizing President Obama's plan to stem home foreclosures, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the White House would be happy to invite Santelli in for a visit to read the plan. Said Gibbs, "I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee." And then raising his eyebrows, "Decaf." Personal fits of anger and emotion are not a part of the Millennial way. Rather, the tone is civil and respectful, always. Only Decaf is served. That's why Millennials can't stand partisan brawling. Especially because, more and more, those ideological wars are being fought by politicians alone.
The reason is our primary election system. The American primary system, writes Newsweek's Jonathon Alter, "pushes candidates in both parties to the extremes, which polarizes the debate in ways that don't reflect the centrist views of a vast majority of Americans." "Most people in the political sphere tend to have viewpoints that are more strident than the views of the public as a whole," notes Steve Peace, a former Democratic state senator from San Diego. "That is why our politics are so polarized."
Under the current primary process (including California's), each candidate must appeal only to party loyalists or the "base" with little, if any, incentive to reach out to others. Consequently, in the general election we are typically saddled with a false choice between two ideologues at polar extremes, one of whom inevitably gets elected.
The result is a dysfunctional, dichotomized government, and a black and white world. Ideologues and technocrats claw at each other from Sacramento to Washington over deep and unresolvable philosophical differences that don't reflect how the rest of us think, feel, and live in the world. The debate seems so far removed from our lives. And yet it costs us so much.
So what can we do about it?
In California, we have an opportunity to end the vicious cycle that paralyzes our government and falsely divides our people. If we seize on this opportunity, California can, as it has before, lead the nation on an important political issue with long-term systemic effects going to the heart of our democratic ideals.
In 2010, there will be an "open primary" ballot initiative in California that would help loose California's primary elections from the vice-like grip of an either/or culture of worn-out 20th century ideologies. Under the initiative, voters would continue either to register with a party or "decline to state." The difference is that there would be a single primary in which all candidates for a given office (other than President) would run regardless of party affiliation. Candidates would be listed on the ballot with the following notation under their names: "My party preference is the [fill in the blank] party." The two candidates who garner the most votes in the primary, irrespective of party, would compete in a general election.
In districts where registration leans heavily to one side, general election contenders might be members of the same party, in which case the electorate would likely pick the more moderate of the two. But even in those districts, an open primary would afford members of the minority party the opportunity to capture the "decline to state" voters who have been growing steadily and now make up almost 25 percent of California voters.
Under the current regime, the vast majority of incumbents are shoe-ins for their primaries and therefore go opposed. That would change in an open primary because it opens up the field.
It's a system that puts Democracy before ideology. Open primaries would force candidates in each district to appeal to all voters, rather than only those belonging to their party. This, in turn, would encourage candidates to pursue a more moderate, pragmatic message, more in line with emerging Millennial viewpoints. It would also open up the field of competition in California primaries by encouraging candidates whose views might not perfectly square with one of the prevailing party platforms, to throw their hat into the ring.
Governor Schwarzenegger supports the measure, as does former Governor Gray Davis, among others. Even opponents concede that an open primary would produce more moderate candidates thereby narrowing the ideological extremes in the legislature and reducing gridlock.
Still, both Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento oppose open primaries. The provision was the product of some horse-trading, with Sen. Abel Maldonado requesting that it be inserted into the budget bill in exchange for his vote, which ultimately broke the impasse. "The Democrats in the legislature were not for this," says Bob Mullholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party. "A gun was held to their head."
But it's hardly surprising that partisan incumbents would prefer the status quo primary regime. In favoring Democracy over ideology, the new system would threaten the future viability of many incumbents. That might be bad for their political careers. But it's good for our Democracy.
Open primaries are the way of the future. The issues we face in the 21st Century -- the economy, jobs, the environment, exploding debt, health care, energy -- are too important to be lost on a dying generation's partisan posturing. As President Obama stated in his address to Congress on Tuesday, "We cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment -- our job is to solve the problem."
Let's put an end to the political logjams in Sacramento by ushering in a new generation of policymakers who choose common sense and moderation, over ideology and bluster. In so doing, we can send a strong message to the other states and the federal government regarding this important reform and its significance in our postpartisan era.
Please join our Facebook Group ("California Open Primary Campaign"). Whether or not you are from California, please join--this is, in essence, a national movement that is (re)emerging in California.
The Post Partisan