Breaux and Tauzin: Hyper-polarization, war-like rhetoric have poisoned our politicsBY JOHN BREAUX AND BILLY TAUZIN Jul 24, 2024 Updated 13 hrs ago
n times of uncertainty or crisis, candidates for public office too often use inflammatory rhetoric to sow fear and anger among voters in hopes of gaining political advantage. Such tactics are dangerous. They polarize our nation — and sometimes even lead to violence.
We now find ourselves in such times.
Seven of the past nine U.S. presidents have been targets of violent attacks or assassination attempts. At least that many other public officials have been targets of political violence.
This must stop.
We both had the honor of representing Louisiana in Washington at a time when members of opposing political parties — like us — could respectfully air honest disagreements and still know each other as close friends.
In those days, personal relationships often mattered as much as party affiliation, and “compromise” was not a dirty word. In fact, finding middle ground on major issues was a noble — and very achievable — goal, one that we both proudly pursued.
Nowadays, there’s a dividing line between Republicans and Democrats, and party leaders don’t allow members to cross that line. It’s always, “We’re right and they’re wrong.” That message comes from both sides, which makes it exceedingly difficult to work together to produce good legislation.
This didn’t happen overnight. Nor did it happen by accident.
When someone runs for office today, the first thing consultants do is dig into an opponent’s history all the way back to kindergarten. Candidates go after each other personally rather than debate sincere policy differences. That’s why too many good people don’t run for public office. They fear unwarranted, personal attacks on themselves and their family.
Third-party committees produce attack ads that are especially hurtful, but they are not alone.
Candidates rely too much on national parties for messaging and money. Parties thus control the tenor of most campaigns, which makes them complicit in the toxicity of today’s politics. After Election Day, the party consultants go back to Washington, unaware of — and unfazed by — the hurt they leave behind.
Another aspect of this toxicity is the increased use of the language of war — words common to military campaigns — to frame political campaigns. Notice how often candidates use words like “fight,” “battle,” “attack,” “destroy,” “threat,” “target” and other war-related metaphors.
Political campaigns, like wars, cause wounds and leave scars.
People get elected today not to get along, but to get even. Campaigns are so mean that even good candidates struggle to get over campaign wounds. It’s all so personal. They arrive in Washington angry at the other party and mistrustful of its members.
All this has left us beyond polarized now. We are hyper-polarized, and this hyper-polarization is baked into our politics. We have created solidly Democratic and solidly Republican congressional districts. To win in those districts, candidates be the most extreme liberal or the most extreme conservative in the race. This has filtered down to the state level.
To reverse this hyper-polarization, we must return to more balanced districts that force candidates to respond to diverse constituencies.
We also need a conversation about how media — especially social media — poison political discourse in America by generating a constant barrage of toxic talk and images.
Each of us has an obligation in those intensely emotional conversations to call people out when their language goes too far. On a larger scale, we need objective voices in the national media shaming people who go too far — even if they don’t have a sense of shame.
In a free society, that’s all we can do. The First Amendment protects even outrageous speech. We can’t outlaw it, but we can shame people who go too far. Shaming people works, especially if it comes from all sides, resoundingly and constantly, until the shameful rhetoric ends.
But shaming is only a short-term measure.
Long-term, we must end the hyper-polarization in America that separates Americans from one another by creating more diverse congressional and legislative districts.
We Americans are passionate about our political beliefs. Our passions reflect how deeply we love our nation and the ideals it represents, even — or especially — when our laws and policies fall short of those ideals.
But we must reject the language of war and other inflammatory political rhetoric. We must remember, even in the course of intense political campaigns, that we are neighbors, friends and fellow Americans first and foremost, each deserving of respect and civility.
Above all, we must never let our passions determine how we treat one another.
John Breaux represented Louisiana in Washington for 33 years — 15 in the House and 18 in the Senate. Billy Tauzin served Louisiana in the U.S. House for 25 years — 15 as a Democrat and 10 as a Republican.https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics-polarization-partisanship-democrats-republicans-congress-government/article_fed67724-ab9f-5555-9277-7be95e72f52a.html
