They Think You're Stupid (5 page)

Still, in every election cycle political candidates intentionally instill confusion and spin the status of the economy to make their economic plans look superior to those of their opponent. The result is an electorate uninformed of the most reliable and descriptive economic indicators. Even worse, continued abuse and distortion of these terms perpetuate a growing sense of racial, economic, and social divisiveness. We have to use the correct language every day in our political discourse, or we will perpetuate label confusion and abuse.

The polarizing labels and phrases used by our political leaders and elected officials cause confusion over the details of policy issues and contribute to long-term discord between people and groups with opposing political views. This sustained polarization has created three profound divisions throughout our country that I call the great divides. They are the
party divide
, the
racial divide
, and the
economic divide
.

The first great divide is the
party divide
. The party divide is represented by the extreme partisanship that exists between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., and throughout our country. Three factors have contributed to the growing party divide: differences in party ideology, the political parties' key goals, and the public's apathetic attitude about the activities in the political arena.

The first factor contributing to the party divide is
ideological differences
(see definitions of
Republican
and
Democrat
in the glossary on the previous pages) between the parties concerning the issues most important to the country and the proper solutions needed to address the issues. Ideological differences and healthy debate on the issues go back to the founding of the United States. Our Founding Fathers debated vigorously over the proper size and influence of the central government and the proper role of the United States in the affairs of foreign countries. Two prominent politicians of that time, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, even settled a dispute with a now-famous duel. Though we no longer settle political disputes with pistols at thirty paces, the current political climate is as divided as any era in our history. A unique characteristic of today's political climate is that we are fighting wars against terror abroad and against our economic infrastructure at home.

We face the reality today that the three pillars of our economic infrastructure--the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare, which also happen to be the biggest domestic challenges we face--are in danger of collapse. At the same time, we are fighting an enemy abroad who seeks to completely destroy our freedoms and way of life. You should have no doubt in your mind that this is one of the most significant times in our nation's history. The fact that we are confronted by this many critical challenges at one time ensures that we will also face intense debate regarding their proper solutions.

The second factor contributing to the party divide concerns the
goals
of the two major political parties. Both parties want to pass legislation favorable to their overall ideologies and policy agendas. As stated in the introduction, however, neither party has a clear agenda for advocating aggressive policy change. Absent an aggressive agenda, the parties' current goals are often merely winning elections and winning the perceptions war, which is waged with the ammunition of labels, inflammatory rhetoric, and the people's money.

Obviously, a party must win elections to have the opportunity to advocate an aggressive policy agenda. Winning elections only for the sake of victory, however, does not inspire the public to believe change in the status quo is possible. Today we see too many political campaigns fought with personal attacks and deception. Political parties and candidates interested in engaging the public in the political process must inspire the public by explaining the positive effects of aggressive policy change.

An example of deceptive political campaigning is the attack in 2004 by Democratic candidates and Democratic elected officials across the country on the FairTax proposal. The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Georgia released an advertisement in which she says of her Republican opponent, a cosponsor of the FairTax, "He wants a new 23 percent sales tax on nearly everything you buy--cars, groceries, even prescription drugs."

This advertisement is deceptive because it says nothing about the fact that the 23 percent sales tax replaces all federal income taxes or that elimination of the current tax code will increase take-home pay for every employee. Nor does it address the Family Consumption Allowance that will provide monthly payments to offset the cost of necessities like food and prescription drugs, while effectively eliminating the tax burden on the poor, or the fact that the FairTax only applies to purchases of new goods and services. In addition, the candidate offers no plan of her own for reforming or replacing the current tax code.

This political advertisement, like so many others that bombard our televisions every year, discourages the parties and candidates from addressing aggressive policy change. Instead, the object of this and similar advertisements is to "poison the well" by deceiving the public about the facts of the issues. The more you poison the well of political and public discourse, the more people join the ranks of the politically homeless.

The third factor (along with differences in ideology and goals) contributing to the party divide is the public's
political apathy
. A majority of the public is disengaged from the political process, which provides no incentive for the parties and political candidates to change their tactics. Citizens must be proactive in educating themselves on the dynamics of the big issues. An active public, knowledgeable of the issues, would force our elected officials and party leaders to elevate their discourse past personal and sound bite attacks to a discussion on the merits of the issues and their proposed solutions.

The disconnect between the public and the lawmakers causes lawmakers to use rhetoric that appeals to the lowest common denominator of understanding. Politicians feel that an uninformed public cannot understand the minutia of policy details. That is why we so often hear terms like "tax cuts for the rich" or former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards's continuous complaint that "We live in two Americas." These statements have no basis in fact, but are used to play upon public apathy and ignorance by promoting jealously and economic class warfare.

The second great divide in our country is the
racial divide
. The issue of race and debates surrounding equal rights, protection of rights, and guarantees for all citizens has been a part of our political dialogue since our Founding Fathers penned the Constitution. Today, the issue of race, which includes how various races are affected by policies and predicting how individuals of the various races will cast their votes, continues to permeate our political dialogue and policymaking decisions.

When most political observers write or talk about the role Blacks play in the political arena, their immediate thought or response is likely, "Blacks vote for Democrats." That is a broad, perhaps shallow, but mostly true statement. The history of Black political behavior in terms of voting, especially since 1936, is one of overwhelming support for Democratic candidates at the local, state, and federal levels.

Since 1936, for example, support by Blacks for the Democratic presidential nominee has never dipped below 60 percent. This type of "brand loyalty" is of course desired by, and critical to the success of, Democratic candidates. The almost blind loyalty given by a majority of Blacks to the Democratic Party, however, is a phenomenon that some have equated to the sociological concept of
groupthink
.

Groupthink is a concept described in 1982 by psychologist Irving Janis as "A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

If we want to understand why groupthink exists in the Black electorate, as well as the nature of the racial divides that permeate the current political arena, we must first examine the political players and documents responsible for causing the divides.

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) established, in the
Plessy v. Ferguson
case, that "separate but equal" facilities, because they were "equal," did not violate the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Justice Henry Billings Brown, writing for the majority, defended "separate but equal" facilities on the grounds that "a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color--has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races."

Justice Brown further stated, "The object of the [14
^th
] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either."

The USSC decision in
Plessy
was not unanimous. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who ultimately wrote the correct opinion, was the lone dissenter. He did not see in the Constitution a justification to view citizens differently based on race. Justice Harlan wrote in his dissent,

But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.

With its ruling on the
Plessy
case, the USSC embarked on a slippery slope that would lead future courts and lawmaking bodies to view citizens as members of a particular race, requiring equal protection of the laws because of their race, instead of as individual citizens who are guaranteed equal protection of the laws because of the Fourteenth Amendment's mandate.

The "separate but equal" doctrine stood until 1954, when the USSC struck down, in the
Brown v. Board of Education
case, "separate but equal" facilities. In the Brown opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that,

. . . to separate (school children) solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. . . . Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of
Plessy v. Ferguson
, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in
Plessy v. Ferguson
to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

The glaring omission in the
Brown
opinion is that Warren did not cite Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion from
Plessy
. Warren could have written that
Brown
overruled
Plessy
strictly on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thereby validating Harlan's argument that the Constitution is colorblind. Instead, with its decision in
Brown
, the USSC still refused to support the Fourteenth Amendment based on a strict reading of its language.