American political parties are locked into their deepest conflict since the Civil War. Research by the nonpartisan Pew Trust reveals that “Growing shares of both Republicans and Democrats say members of the other party are more immoral, dishonest, and closed-minded than other Americans.”
A prominent Democratic representative now calls for “all out war on Trump,” while Trump insists that opponents’ swamp must be cleaned out.
The discord extends beyond politics. A recent book by a leading environmental scientist openly calls corporations “the enemy,” while industry quietly reciprocates that hostility.
Conflict hurts both parties as well as the nation, because each party’s policies have been reversed after change of party in presidential elections. Gridlock since the early 1990s has largely blocked Congress’s ability to take action on major national issues. Loss of moderates in Congress began in the late 1990s and continues to the present. The parties are now heavily influenced by their radical wings.
The conflict is anachronistic because mutual rejection defies basic principles of successful human relations. These principles were articulated in one of the most popular books in history: Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” First published in 1936, the book went through 17 printings in its first year and went on to sell more than 30 million copies. Carnegie is quoted: “Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn — and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.”
Carnegie’s principles, based on showing genuine respect for and interest in others’ views, did not receive much attention in academia. Some critics, such as Sinclair Lewis, criticized Carnegie for being simplistic and insincere. However, his basic ideas are supported by two of the most influential individuals in history: Aristotle and Benjamin Franklin.
Aristotle analyzed successful human relations in his famous book, “On Rhetoric“. His tutelage in Macedonia of young Alexander the Great and students who would become Alexander’s generals arguably helped Alexander become the most successful conqueror of all time.
Alexander was an implacable military leader, but he understood human relations and gained respect from the societies he conquered. Without the support of local leaders and populations, he could not have led tens of thousands of Greek soldiers through distant and unforgiving new terrains while retaining the allegiance of earlier conquered areas.
Franklin’s homely advice for good human relations through his widely popular Poor Richard’s Almanac, may have influenced Alexis de Tocqueville’s perception of the remarkable ability of Americans to cooperate for mutual benefit in a myriad of organizations.
How did Americans deal with conflict earlier in U.S. history? One answer is war — notably the Civil War — with appalling loss of life and consequences that the nation has still not fully overcome.
Sometimes, external wars fostered greater internal unity. During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration and industry had an antagonistic relationship. But after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, both immediately put aside hostilities. Roosevelt appointed the president of General Motors to head war production, and the whole nation came together in the war effort. There followed the greatest surge in GDP per capita in American history.
Positive response to conflict has been provided by respected leaders and mediators such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, who served in this role in domestic politics although not in foreign affairs. Lincoln’s potentially constructive influence after the Civil War was tragically cut short by his assassination.
Public opinion has previously had constructive influence on political affairs. In the 1870s, the nation was in turmoil over Southern policy and governmental and private corruption. A wave of public revulsion led both parties to nominate reformers as presidential candidates in the election of 1876.
War is not a current source of unifying opinion. Balanced leaders have little chance of achieving prominent roles through the current polarized party system. Independent public influence is more difficult to mobilize in the electronic era of manipulation of public opinion and media’s attraction to charismatic political figures.
However, recent research shows that the public is increasingly dissatisfied with the polarization of the parties. Only 4 percent say that the political system is working well, while 63 percent “express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the political system.” A growing share dislikes both parties. A Gallup Poll reveals that political independents now greatly outnumber Republicans and Democrats. Growth of independent public opinion appears to be an important step in opening the way for moderate leaders to retain influence in national politics.
Constructive change can be influenced by third parties. They are not likely to emulate the rise of the anti-slavery Republican Party in the 1850s because of the huge advantage of major parties in fundraising, organization, and media access. However, they can serve in the role of kingmaker. In the 2000 election, even the small Green Party, whose candidate was Ralph Nader, and the smaller Reform Party led by Pat Buchanan, won enough votes to eclipse the margin by which the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, lost the election in the critical Florida vote.
A number of centrist groups, such as Andrew Yang’s Forward Party and especially the influential No Labels movement, with links to the Problem Solvers Caucus in the House of Representatives, are drawing increasing support. Whatever the outcome of the current election, it seems clear that a new generation of political leaders will soon come to the fore. They will be wise to heed growing public disaffection with the status quo.
Frank T. Manheim is an affiliate professor and distinguished research fellow at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.