The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
The Governing Cancer of Our Time
We
 live in a big, diverse society. There are essentially two ways to 
maintain order and get things done in such a society — politics or some 
form of dictatorship. Either through compromise or brute force. Our 
founding fathers chose politics.
Politics
 is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence of 
different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to 
balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a 
majority of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution
 or in custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody 
considers legitimate.
The
 downside of politics is that people never really get everything they 
want. It’s messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics 
is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and 
settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.
But
 that’s sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless 
conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from 
their vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. 
Plus, it’s better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian 
tyrant who tries to govern by clobbering everyone in his way.
As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, “In Defence of Politics,” “Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence.”
Over
 the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are 
against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but 
not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political 
experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and 
deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give 
legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.
Ultimately,
 they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political
 narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other 
interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total
 victories for themselves and their doctrine.
This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:
The
 antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or 
experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which 
leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even 
more outsiders.
The
 antipolitics people don’t accept that politics is a limited activity. 
They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those
 expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even
 further in the direction of antipolitics.
The
 antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative 
process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The 
decline in trust makes deal-making harder.
We’re
 now at a point where the Senate says it won’t even hold hearings on a 
presidential Supreme Court nominee, in clear defiance of custom and the 
Constitution. We’re now at a point in which politicians live in fear if 
they try to compromise and legislate. We’re now at a point in which 
normal political conversation has broken down. People feel unheard, 
which makes them shout even louder, which further destroys conversation.
And
 in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional 
candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That’s 
not true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for
 the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of 
rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent 
political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to 
fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.
We
 live in a big, diverse society. There are essentially two ways to 
maintain order and get things done in such a society — politics or some 
form of dictatorship. Either through compromise or brute force. Our 
founding fathers chose politics.
Politics
 is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence of 
different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to 
balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a 
majority of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution
 or in custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody 
considers legitimate.
The
 downside of politics is that people never really get everything they 
want. It’s messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics 
is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and 
settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.
But
 that’s sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless 
conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from 
their vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. 
Plus, it’s better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian 
tyrant who tries to govern by clobbering everyone in his way.
As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, “In Defence of Politics,” “Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence.”
Over
 the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are 
against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but 
not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political 
experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and 
deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give 
legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.
Ultimately,
 they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political
 narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other 
interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total
 victories for themselves and their doctrine.
This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:
The
 antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or 
experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which 
leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even 
more outsiders.
The
 antipolitics people don’t accept that politics is a limited activity. 
They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those
 expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even
 further in the direction of antipolitics.
The
 antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative 
process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The 
decline in trust makes deal-making harder.
We’re
 now at a point where the Senate says it won’t even hold hearings on a 
presidential Supreme Court nominee, in clear defiance of custom and the 
Constitution. We’re now at a point in which politicians live in fear if 
they try to compromise and legislate. We’re now at a point in which 
normal political conversation has broken down. People feel unheard, 
which makes them shout even louder, which further destroys conversation.
And
 in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional 
candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That’s 
not true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for
 the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of 
rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent 
political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to 
fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.
Trump
 represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence 
undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more 
than a whiff, of “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
I printed out a Times list
 of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The list took up 33 pages. 
Trump’s style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or 
disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied promise 
of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way 
through.
Trump’s
 supporters aren’t looking for a political process to address their 
needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams found,
 the one trait that best predicts whether you’re a Trump supporter is 
how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.
This
 isn’t just an American phenomenon. Politics is in retreat and 
authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. The answer to Trump is 
politics. It’s acknowledging other people exist. It’s taking pleasure in
 that difference and hammering out workable arrangements. As Harold 
Laski put it, “We shall make the basis of our state consent to 
disagreement. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony.---{-=@
HICKOK
 
 
     



