Public dissatisfaction with Congress hovers near all-time highs. Our politics have become increasingly polarized, increasingly fractious and increasingly nasty. Why?

In a widely cited piece originally published in The Washington Post, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein contend that the Republicans are the problem.

In their view, the Republican party has become “ideologically extreme” and moved too far “from the mainstream.”

Gridlock in Washington is primarily the Republicans’ fault, they argue, because Republicans now refuse to compromise with the administration, even to support legislation that, in past years, they had claimed to support. Republicans, they contend, have become captive to ideological special interests that have driven the party to move sharply rightward.

Mann and Ornstein correctly note that the two parties in Congress have become more ideologically coherent. For most of the time since the second world war, there were many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress. In those days, many Democrats could be found in the House and the Senate who were more conservative than the most liberal Republicans.

Now, that is no longer true; even in the Senate, all of the Democrats are to the left of all the Republicans.

This process of ideological realignment would, by itself, explain much of the increased conflict in Congress. Our institutions were not designed with political parties in mind; and the rules of the Senate in particular, which enable a minority of 41 senators to prevent a majority of 59 from acting, virtually guarantee gridlock any time the two parties disagree.

What Mann and Ornstein overlook, however, are the changes in the electorate that have led to the changes they deplore in Washington.

Republicans in Congress have become more conservative because voters have become more willing to vote for conservative candidates.

For much of the postwar period, liberals and conservatives shared substantially similar visions of the role of government. Liberals wanted to increase the scope and generosity of the welfare state relatively quickly, and conservatives wanted to increase it slowly.

Liberals wanted a lot of governmental regulation; conservatives, slightly less.

In times of relatively rapid economic growth, a youthful population and sustained immigration, it was possible to offer generous benefits to retirees and pensioners while keeping taxes relatively low.

Although this consensus has been coming under strain for some time, the economic crisis of 2008 and its aftermath have shattered it.

Liberals, who are now reliably Democratic, learned from the crisis that too many are too vulnerable to economic dislocations, and that the government should do more to provide economic security.

They urgently sought to expand the welfare state and fought for the Affordable Care Act, and they have demanded increased regulation and a larger role for the government in the direction of the economy — for example, by investing in “green” industry and high-speed rail.

Conservatives, who are now reliably Republican, drew from the crisis and its aftermath precisely the opposite lessons. Bailouts costing hundreds of billions of dollars and deficits of more than a trillion dollars per year have led many on the right to conclude that the government spends too much because it is trying to do too much.

We look at the problems in Europe — not so much the problems of the single currency, but the underlying unsustainability of their welfare states.

We look around the United States and notice that the states whose balance sheets and economies are in the worst shape — places such as California, Illinois and Rhode Island — all have been governed according to the old consensus priorities: more taxes, more regulation, an ever-expanding welfare state.

In this new environment, many Republicans who supported George Bush’s Medicare expansion and assertion of national responsibility for education have had second thoughts about their support for the old consensus.

If the modern welfare state is economically unsustainable, then we shouldn’t argue about how quickly or slowly to expand it. We should argue about how to reform and cut it, so that we provide essential minimum benefits to the most needy but otherwise expect people to take responsibility for their own lives. Hence the rise of the tea party.

Mann and Ornstein might reasonably argue, on the merits, that reducing the size of government is not the right path forward for our country; but they remain so wedded to the old consensus that they fail to see that our politics have fundamentally shifted. They are right, however, to see that our politics are likely to remain bitter and conflictual until a new consensus emerges.

Joseph R. Reisert is associate professor of American constitutional law and chairman of the department of government at Colby College in Waterville.

Copy the Story Link