Dazed and confused

Geoff Ryan on the demise of political parties

So, the U.S. Presidential election is finally over and America has its first black President. History has been made and remade (and reinvented) and the future has again become strange and uncharted territory.

One could choose any number of angles that can be considered “different” about this particular election:  the shattering of gender and racial “glass  ceilings”;  the unusually acrimonious tone of much of the partisan warfare;  the sheer public exhaustion generated by the attention-numbing length of the campaign;  the unconscionable amount of money spent by campaigners (collectively several billion dollars according to some estimates);  the fact that as a Senator, the new President had the most liberal voting record of any current U.S. senator and is well to the left of many Americans, yet people voted for him in droves - seemingly against their consciences and in contradiction of their principles;  the inordinate role played by celebrities (someone please tell me who elected Oprah to such a position of power and prominence?) and the media in helping Obama to become President; the pall cast over everything by the war in Iraq; the skittish fear generated by the market meltdown.

In my opinion, however, the most interesting and potentially important aspect of this election is what some political scientists are calling “de-alignment”.  This relatively new political climate is characterized by electoral coalitions, candidate-centred elections and broad-based shifts in party loyalty and identification. Richard Florida, the American public intellectual (now living in Toronto), attributes this shift to the rise of what he calls “the creative class”.  These are people who work in the creative sector (about 40 million people in the US, accounting for nearly a third of the work force).  “The rise of the creative economy generated a shift in social values. Tolerance, diversity and self-expression became prized. Diversity and self-expression became necessary for the creative economy to flourish and function.” And this group apparently all voted for Obama.

Florida believes that this rising dynamic in American politics, which can be mirrored in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and much of Europe, will trigger a backlash of “reactive populism” that will lead to “an extended period of volatility and conflict”.  “America isn’t just suffering from political polarization, but a burgeoning economic divide and class war,” according to Florida.

Possibly…

Keep in mind that Florida gets paid to come up with clever ideas and creative angles on things and so he might just be trying to sell some more books. On the other hand, he maybe onto something. Yet I think he is only touching on the tip of the change. I think there is an even more fundamental shift afoot.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil and noted public intellectual, wrote the following in Foreign Policy magazine back in 2005.

“We take it for granted that political parties are vital to modern political life. They have shaped representative democracies since the late 19th century. Yet, their prospects are not bright in today’s large democracies. In fact, these powerful political machines may soon disappear.

The ground is already shifting underneath their feet. Political parties have based their platforms on ideological and class divides that are becoming less important, especially in more advanced societies. Although class consciousness still matters, ethnic, religious, and sexual identities now trump class, and these affiliations cut across traditional political party lines. Today, the labels left and right have less and less meaning. Citizens have developed multiple interests, diverse senses of belonging, and overlapping identities. Some political parties have managed to adapt. Think of the British Labour Party, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, or Brazil’s Workers’ Party, whose economic policy has very little to do with its trade union origins.

Others won’t be so lucky. Political dislocation exists alongside a growing fatigue with traditional forms of political representation. People no longer trust the political establishment. They want a greater say in public matters and usually prefer to voice their interests directly or through interest groups and nongovernmental organizations. The debate on genetically modified food in Europe, for example, can hardly be understood without reference to organizations allegedly representing consumer interests, such as Greenpeace. And thanks to modern communication, citizens’ groups can bypass political parties in shaping public policy. Political parties no longer have a lock on legitimacy.”

Canadian political columnist Michael Valpy agrees with Cardoso. Commenting on the recent Canadian election (which snuck by in a mere six weeks from start to finish, unnoticed by the rest of the world… a mouse ghosting across the floor in between the feet of the elephant) in The  Globe and Mail, Valpy wrote:

“Over the past two decades, Canadians have been inching toward small-c conservatism, a slow, oozing shift in values and notions of how the country should be run, taking them further and further away from their one-time rah-rah support for the progressive state as the instrument of national collectivity.

But the real seismic adjustment of the electorate is not from one ideological camp to another.

Rather it’s a drift from Canada’s traditional small-l liberalism… to a rejection of all ideology and theoretical ideas of governance and society that dramatically sets Canadians apart from their southern neighbours. Pollsters say Canadians increasingly think of themselves as non-partisan and non-ideological and have the weakest political-party affinity in the Western world.”

It’s the same thing really.

And both Canada and the U.S. were pre-empted by Tony Blair in the U.K. and his reinvention of the Labour Party into New Labour. Cool Brittania arrived before Obamamania and before the usual and expected Canadian fear of any strong conviction on anything (apart from a strong commitment to the absence of any and all strong convictions).

I know I am finding it harder to fully identify with any of the major political parties in my own country. No single party can be counted on to represent my political, social and religious interests faithfully and comprehensively. And yet, I want to be a good citizen. I feel a responsibility to involve myself in society, in the public square. I have a deep interest in politics and in the past have been involved with strategic planning, policy work and campaign consultation.

But the problem is that increasingly I am finding that the issues and principles that are important to me are actually quite evenly spread across all of the major political parties in my country.
So, what is a concerned citizen to do? Further, what is political junkie like me, to do? And this is just my situation and in Canada. I’m not alone. I’ve had similar conversations with friends from the U.S., the UK, Australasia and various European nations. The political party names change, the issues differ (slightly), the positional specifics vary, but the basic conundrum remains. Increasingly, political parties are parties that no one wants to attend.

Neither Cardoso, Valpy or Florida offer up much by way of an alternative to the present party system. They have done a good job in identifying a trend, a problem even, but they posit no real solutions. So what are the options? Do we all just slowly opt out and refuse to vote? Do we mobilize locally, forming an increasingly bewildering array of alternative, grass-roots, fringe parties centred around specific issues? Do we disregard political parties altogether and simply vote for the person running?

If yesterday’s US Presidential election is any indication of where things might head, then the last option seems to be gaining ground. Because, that is exactly what happened in the U.S. People didn’t vote Republican or Democrat - they voted for Obama.

Writer: Major Geoff Ryan is co-founder and publisher of theRubicon, co-ordinator of the 614 Network and organizes the bi-annual Urban Forum. His interests include writing, politics, coffee and his children. Geoff and his wife Sandra minister in Regent Park, a social housing project in downtown Toronto, Canada.

7 Comments to Dazed and confused

1. Here’s a different view along the lines of what you’re saying. People are certainly voting more for the candidate than the party.
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
Catherine W. on November 5th, 2008

2. Without going into an essay, the basis of this de-alignment is from advances in communications technology. It started with the printing press, it progressed to the newspaper, it developed into radio, then television, and finally we have the internet. The result is a more and more individualistic world view, detached from others, a culture then where individuals in the society cares about themselves. McLuhan even argues that there was no notion of “self” before the printing press. (I think that means people did not have an individualistic world view, but one aligned with some sort of social cleavage, be that religion, ideology, race, etc).

   Politicians no longer have a base to work with. Memberships have dwindled. What happens? They have no money left (yes in most nations except the states I believe their is public funding, but thats usually not enough to run an election campaign.) To win, they need both votes and money. Where does the money come from. Well who sponsors them? Big business. We are never going to move away from politics skewed towards big business because they are the ones who are providing the politicians with money. And what about the votes if people are so fragmented? Well the answer is again in business. Parties now use marketing techniques to “sell” their policies to voters. Hence you get basically the same policies (because they will win you elections), but the only real difference is the marketing, who the leader is, which celebrities are supporting who. In other words, the PERCEIVED difference portrayed by the media. That’s why politicians appear in Saturday Night Live, Oprah Winfrey, Rove Live (for Australians) - to relate to a people they’ve now lost.

   So how do we deal? For me, I look at it this way. The early Christians lived in the Roman empire and preached the gospel - the good news. What’s the good news? Well ultimately I believe it’s this. In Rome - Caesar was Lord. But the Christians saw it differently, that Jesus is Lord…he is the King from on high and He has risen from the dead.

   They responded by challenging the Roman Empire…they did so by simply refusing to accept Caesar as Lord. They lived out what they believed. They fed the poor. They spoke against the prevailing culture of greatness and power. They lived - together. In other words they lived according to Christ’s prayer in John 17 - “in the world but not of the world”

   In the same way we should challenge the prevailing culture today. We as Christians are not “individuals”. We are Christians, we belong to the body of Christ, and our hope is that Jesus is Lord (not any other politician or political ideology, because in fact we already have one. A monarchy under Christ.)

   Practically for me that means that a number of things. Given that everytime I buy something it is essentially a political act, I do not buy into the consumerist culture. I care for my environment as best I can. That I do try and build real relationships with people, and take care of others (easier said then done), that I try and live out as much of my life with my view that Jesus not anybody else is Lord. Basically work towards the kingdom of heaven.

   Just in case anybody cares…I’m either going to vote for the Greens in the next Australian election or just draw a box and put Jesus’ name next to it.
Clint on November 5th, 2008

3. Seems to me that if there is a change away from political parties, toward simply choosing the best leader, that the U.S. system is better than the parliamentary system in Canada (or UK or Australia or other). Electing the president apart from congress (and then forcing the president and the congress to work together) is superior to the parliamentary system in which the prime minister is head of both the government and the legislature/parliament. The result in Canada is that the party system requires members of the legislature/parliament to only vote the party line rather than voting their conscience or the will of their constituents.

   So if we are going to talk about the breaking down of the party system, I hope that translates into the breaking down of party discipline in Canada so that members of the legislature/parliament can vote as they want. I would support some type of mechanism that would allow that to occur without toppling the government. An even better change would be to elect the prime minister on popular vote, apart from support in the parliament.

   As for democracy, let’s bring more of it into the church.
John Norton on November 5th, 2008

4. Not much to add except that I’ve really enjoyed Claiborne and Haw and their ‘Jesus for President’ book and tour. This article speaks to their thoughts on this.

   http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7616
Dion Oxford on November 5th, 2008

5. I was challenged by a family member to read three books this summer. The Shack, Jesus for President and Everything must Change. I have read and was challenged by all three. Maybe the political system and the church are facing similar challenges. Think about it. May God guide us aright.
John Nelson on November 5th, 2008

6. Democracy has spoken through the American People electing Obama as President. Personally I think he was the wrong choice (not that John McCain was necessarilly a much better choice).

   Having said that it is indeed a breakthrough for people of color to have one elcted as leader of the prime nation in the Western World.

   However I am not sure that the policies Obama will bring to his presidency are truly understood by the US people. But it will be nice to see them have a National Medicare program so that all have access. Other areas I am not so sure off.

   Time will tell.

   John Stephenson
John Stephenson on November 5th, 2008

7. on the brink of the demise of democracy you think more democracy in the church is needed? hmmm. This last US election was a mockery of democracy in many ways… the 18 months of time and energy, the colossal waste of money… the unapologetic liberal bias in the media… all of that not Obama’s fault in a society dominated by celebrity - nor was it his credit. And I guess the point you are making Geoff is that it doesn’t really matter… in the end it’s about the voters.
   In Australia you are fined if you don’t vote. So, the new generation of ‘de-aligned’ folks have simply stopped registering for the vote. Clever.
   I think like never before we have an opportunity to engage people in thoughtful debate and dialogue about issues that matter… instead of the regular alignment of political bias we have a window where a generation can define the type of leadership needed based on it’s desire to impact the world.
   Education. Awareness. Exposure. Training. Impact. In a globally connected world we need to understand the role of the church as salt and light. The real need is to capture the hearts of this generation for world changing values… the politics will follow.
Danielle Strickland on November 5th, 2008

Leave a comment