Two-Party Politics Stymie Nuanced Relationships

High Conflict oversimplifies our lives. We become binary, which, as Jeff Gudman so eloquently reminded us all, is simply wrong.

At a recent gathering of individuals involved with The Oregon Way blog, attendees considered how to make a contribution to healthier civics culture in Oregon. The host, former candidate for State Treasurer Jeff Gudman, introduced himself as a man of multitudes.  His recitation of his various interests, hobbies, responsibilities, and occupations made me stop for a moment and look around at the variety of people there and wonder just how much I didn’t know about each of them.

Picture of The Oregon Way gathering.

What was immediately apparent to me was the fact that in some respect every one of the Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and old and young individuals assembled there had a great deal in common. Later, sitting one on one with several attendees that I had not known well before, that fact was certainly confirmed as we talked not only of politics but of family, community, and dreams in a way that was easy to find agreement on. Oregon may not be totally unique in providing this opportunity, but I nonetheless am grateful for the fact that I live in a place where this could happen. 

The reality however is that even here in Oregon, maybe especially so, we are locked in a cycle of conflict that threatens to destroy our sense of community, leaves us unsure of our decision to stay, and forces us to choose a “side” that addresses our fears, our need to matter, and our need to belong.  This is not the “Oregon” that most of us chose to embrace, and is not a sustainable reality.

Without question, our cities are dying, our educational system is in shambles, our local politics are no longer immune from the partisan bickering exemplified by Washington D.C., and our faith in one another is being challenged. Our politics and our public policy is trapped in an accelerating cycle of dissension that fails to result in thoughtful and nuanced solutions and instead has become a “thing” unto itself. 

Highly acclaimed and award-winning author Amanda Ripley has written a very illuminating book entitled “High Conflict,” which shows us how small conflicts can quickly result in an “us vs. them,” Hatfield-and-McCoy feud that takes on a complete life of its own. She also takes us through a number of stories that demonstrate just how effective fixing the individual relationships can be in allowing us to get out of High Conflict. The key to the fix is giving one another the chance to know the incredibly complex reality of “who” we each are.

Ripley makes the compelling case that to avoid High Conflict, we must avoid the conflict entrepreneurs that feed off of and profit from conflict.  Pundits or platforms or service providers that exist to “win” at all costs and that flourish in the face of High Conflict, must not be allowed to trap us into a belief that our fate is locked into an eternal conflict. Getting trapped in that false reality leads us to a need to be certain of our own moral superiority and when that happens, we inevitably make many mistakes in judgment of others—either someone is for us and with us or clearly on “the other side.”  Each side then exploits these mistakes and the conflict deepens. As Nelson Mandela observed in a now famous interview with Oprah Winfrey, “There is no one who is more dangerous than one who has been humiliated, even when you do so rightly.”

There is no doubt that a “cultural” shift that brings us back from the precipice that we teeter on in our current deepening conflict society is needed. But I argue that until our leaders’ model that culture, we as a society will not be able to avoid the vicious cycle that we are in. The need to address increasingly complex problems demand that we find solutions, and the executives and legislators that are tasked with finding those solutions understandably feel the need to “fight” for those that they feel responsible for. 

The problem is that we have a binary system of government that will not allow for the nuance and complexity that is the reality of our lives. The “Duopoly” of the two political parties that control every aspect of our government must perpetuate the humiliation in order to survive. Without convincing a majority of voters that the other side is wrong, they have no purpose, and, eventually, will lose their relevance.

And while parties have a role to play in framing policy issues, when they become the controlling entity in the system, they—out of necessity—need to “own” and simplify those issues in order to create a clear separation from the other. Soon the fight becomes about who is good and who is bad, which is where we find ourselves today. 

A relatively few structural changes would go a long way to address this reality. Opening voting to all voters regardless of party affiliation would bring us more leaders who understand and are willing to work in that middle world where nuanced solutions are found.

Allowing the leadership of our legislative assemblies to be determined by the body as a whole rather than the majority party would lead to leaders less worried about party dominance and more about getting the work done. 

Allowing committee chairs to be elected by the body as a whole rather than simply appointed by the majority party leadership would result in chairs with subject expertise rather than political deal making driving those appointments.  The result would be policy committee chairs that embrace complexity and nuance rather than seeking opportunities to make sound bites. 

But as long as we embrace the two-party system we currently have in place, we guarantee that the High Conflict in our governance systems will continue, with the resulting example that seeps into every aspect of our community . . . our school boards, county commissions, city councils, and every other aspect of local leadership will continue to be swept along in this crisis of conflict. 

High Conflict oversimplifies our lives. We become binary, which, as Jeff Gudman so eloquently reminded us all, is simply wrong. It’s ok to have internal doubt. When we allow our curiosity to expose us to the fallibility of our long-held conclusions we cannot help but grow as a people.

Recognizing the fact that each of us contain multitudes, and celebrating our commonality and diversity at the same time are key to avoiding High Conflict. But until our leaders are willing to adopt and function in a system that is not locked into conflict, our individual efforts will be inadequate. Let’s demand that our leaders avoid High Conflict in favor of negotiating good policy. Let’s once again be a leader in good governance by making that the Oregon Way. 

---

Rich Vial is a former Oregon State Legislator, former Deputy Secretary of State and founder of the law firm Vial-Fotheringham, LLC. He provided legal assistance to hundreds of Homeowner Associations throughout the West for four decades and has always had a passion for how communities organize and govern effectively.