A contentious unity

SURFACE APPEARANCES are as deceptive in politics as they are in most things. During the Eisenhower years, commentators were either disparaging or marveling at the great American consensus. Yet, beneath the seemingly contented and apathetic surface of the 1950s were deep strains of discontent among blacks, embittered youths, and threatened white Southerners. In the next decade, these rumblings would burst through the surface and shatter the illusion of unanimity.

Now, unlike 50 years ago, the appearance is of division and disruption. Any observer of the current political dialogue has to shudder at its venomous quality. Bush hatred and Dean bashing--before he dropped out--have been central themes of the current presidential campaign; Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism and Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right have commanded lofty positions on best-seller lists; Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) charges Pres. George W. Bush with recklessly plotting the war in Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton and other rich Texas associates; former presidential hopeful Howard Dean considers Attorney General John Ashcroft the most dangerous threat to American civil liberties since Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R. Wisc., 1947-57); and conservative radio talk show hosts spend endless hours bashing liberals as spineless, decadent, and lacking in patriotism.

Liberal metropolitan America and conservative Middle America seem to inhabit different cultural universes with one celebrating tolerance and diversity and the other tradition and faith. It would be easy to conclude that Americans are constantly at each other's throats and that our political and societal differences are insurmountable. Today's toxicity is just as misleading as the illusion of tranquility during the 1950s. Much of this contention is political theater. It sells books, boosts TV ratings, and enflames the hard core of the left and right. It also masks a more reassuring reality. This is not the 1960s when the issues of the Vietnam War and civil rights tore families apart and caused cities to burn. Since that tumultuous decade, the U.S. has constructed a political consensus much broader and deeper than the chattering classes would have us believe.

Although some of our recent presidents have incited strong feelings of either support or opposition, none has steered too far from the center. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford left Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs intact and actually augmented some; Jimmy Carter had a reform agenda so modest few can remember what it was; Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes and rebuilt our military, wasted no political capital in undoing the New Deal or Great Society programs and allowed domestic spending to rise; George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Air Act, a Civil Rights Bill, and even raised income tax rates for the rich; Bill Clinton's major domestic accomplishments included the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a reduction of the capital gains tax, and several balanced budgets; and George W. Bush has supported a substantial increase in discretionary domestic spending and added a new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It would be hard to discern from this list, if one did not know, who was the Democrat and who was the Republican.

In foreign policy, the level of agreement is equally strong. Since Vietnam, American presidents have sent troops into combat in Kuwait, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq with the general approval of Congress and only sporadic opposition in the streets. A majority of the current presidential candidates support a military effort in the Persian Gull recognize the need for more allied support, and would continue the war on terrorism. Only the fringe candidates--Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton--want to withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

Although there are differences on methods, both parties advocate some type of prescription drug benefit for seniors, increased funding for education, efforts to prevent corporate crime, and a reasonable flow of legal immigration. On social policy, where emotions run the highest, there is more harmony than meets the eye. When the questions of abortion and gay rights are framed in terms of privacy and reasonable restraints, them is broad agreement. The recent Supreme Court decision that overturned the Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy garnered little opposition. Polls show there is marginal support for criminalizing abortions and what restrictions most Americans do favor focus on late-term procedures.

So, why the bitter bickering? The strong reactions to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have more to do with style than substance. To traditional and religiously devout Americans, Clinton is a symbol of a self-indulgent counterculture. To liberal metropolitan Americans, Bush is a symbol of self-righteous piety and Texas arrogance. The passions these two men invoke remind us that two American cultures do exist side by side.