Aside from clear-cut, blockbusting FBI findings that would obviously disqualify President Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, from serving on the Supreme Court, the Senate will soon confirm him to serve the life-time term of a Justice in the Court. What should be astonishing to us is that the vote on this nomination, even with its razor-thin margin of confirmation, could largely have been predicted almost three months earlier on July 9, when the President nominated Judge Kavanaugh. This completely partisan vote, however astonishing, will not be surprising.
Strictly partisan Congressional votes are no longer surprising. Most controversial votes are now decided with almost all the Democrats on one side and almost all the Republicans on the other. It's the deciding vote against one's party's position (such as Senators McCain, Murkowski, and Collin's vote on Obamacare) that is newsworthy. Partisanship has now become the established way of national politics. We have become so inured to it we largely shrug it off every time it happens. It's the new normal.
Prior to 1992, such absolute partisanship was uncommon. We have forgotten how unusual the current state of governance is in the history of American democracy. Individual members of Congress no longer debate the issues meaningfully but come to their decisions based on small hyper-partisan groups within their constituency. The only criterion seems to be "winning" the vote “for the party.”
One result of this development is that it deeply constrains us voters to act along strictly predetermined party lines, even if we are personally open-minded enough to have convictions outside party dictates. For example, a constituent who is strongly opposed to abortion-on-demand (currently a Republican position) yet committed to fighting global climate change (currently a Democratic point of view) will likely have no candidate who shares both her positions. At election time, she can vote against abortion OR for government action on climate change, not both.
The votes in Congress will depend only upon which party is in power.
As undesirable as this is, it has not been judged unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers did not even envision the development of political parties. Since our Constitution does call for "one person, one vote," however, one could make a reasonable case that this hyper-partisanship should be considered unconstitutional since those who stand, for example, both against abortion and for climate control legislation have no meaningful vote. In a true democracy, each important issue is debated and each side is given a chance to argue its position. In the current partisan environment, however, no such meaningful debate can occur.
Whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of Judge Kavanaugh's place on the Supreme Court, the debates in the judiciary committee were rancorous and meaningless. Despite Senator Flake's courageous insistence on further FBI investigation, confirmation has hardly been in doubt (unless the FBI were to present extraordinary findings). The extraordinary charges and counter-charges presented at the hearing only served to deepen the partisan divide in our government and in our country.
Not only is this level of partisanship frustrating and unfair, but it also chips away at American democracy.
Note: I wrote this post a full 5 days before Kavanaugh's confirmation, prior to the public concern about his teen-age behavior. And though this behavior was never satisfactorily resolved, the partisan vote on his confirmation was unchanged.
