Cry Beloved Center

Further evidence that we live in an increasingly polarized political climate is not really news at all. But yet another defeat for a centrist Republican further exemplifies the failure of too many Americans to understand or support the central tenet of democracy -- namely compromise. The latest victim of the new conservative common sense was 36-year veteran Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. Lugar was defeated in the primary by Tea Party-sponsored Richard Mourdock (one wonders if his homonymic namesake has had too large an influence on him) who argued that Lugar too often agreed with President Obama: CNN. Lugar was forced out of office for his inability to avoid compromise at any cost, but other moderates are leaving by choice including long-time Maine centrist Olympia Snowe.

Mourdock explained his position, "What I've said is, and what I continue to believe, certainly, is one side or the other must prevail, and I'm hoping this candidacy will help move the Republican Party forward to become a permanent majority." He continued, ""Some people say, well, we do understand it, and by golly, we're going to wait until we have majorities in both houses, the White House, where there's two years, four years, six years, but the country has to keep going in the meanwhile."

That sounds reasonable, unless you actually believe in democracy, where compromise is essential. The balance and separation of powers that the constitution outlined (and justified in more detail in the federalist papers) make it clear that no party or branch of government should yield too much power. And yet the Republican party seems intent on setting up a "permanent majority" that sounds a lot like a fascist state -- where decisions are not debated by signed by collective fiat. Many forget that when Bush was in power he often ignored the Democratic majority in Congress and did as he pleased, arguing that anyone who disagreed with him was simply "playing politics." The results of this general stance are hard to argue with -- unless you actually care about our debt, the income gap, adventurous militarism, secrecy, the constitution or the future of the country. 

For one party to argue that it seeks absolute power over decision-making means that there would be only one idea that dominated American democracy. And that idea is too often anti-democratic beyond the very idea of one idea (which itself is completely antithetical to democracy -- or the will of the people: particularly when less than 50 percent of the country supports it). What do conservative want? To legislate our bedrooms and women's sexuality. To close the borders of America to unwanted immigrants. To create a corporate plutocracy that is accountable to no one, except maybe the politicians they will continue to pay off. They want no oversight of the economy, few social programs to help the poor, elderly, disabled or anyone else who loses in the new, increasingly harsh global economy. Greed would be the key social attribute, Christianity the only morality (beside fealty to the mythical free market) and individualism would trump community except in embrace of all forms of hatred. Science would diminish in importance, as would rationality and really "reason" of any kind. Is this really the country anyone dreams of? Do many really want to reenter the stale, homogenized, sexist and racist 50s they hold up as the nostalgic utopia? Has America completely lost it's mind?