THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS is a fascinating example of the differences between Republicans and Democrats at this moment in history.
Each party's behavior, and that of the candidates, reflects fundamental differences in the way they view the world.
Republicans tend to see the world as a top-down proposition, rooted in the medieval and ancient tradition of kings.
This doesn't mean they always like that idea: they actually have a sort of love-hate relationship with it. It's more a matter of how they naturally think: what models they tend to use.
Because Republicans think in top-down terms, they find it easier to believe in creation than evolution: the picture of a heavenly king forcing structure onto chaos by divine command fits their model better than the idea of order emerging naturally.
Because Republicans think in top-down terms, they tend to think of the government as an authoritarian body, and the president as a sort of king—the source of governmental authority. This makes them willing to give the president more and more power, and it simultaneously makes them afraid of governmental power in general.
Because they think in top-down terms, it is easy for them to think that someone who disagrees with a president—especially a good president (meaning a Republican president)—is being unpatriotic. The king, after all, is the kingdom.
Because Republicans think in top-down terms they find it easy to believe that on a moral issue like abortion—where there is profound disagreement in our society on almost every point—that the solution is for the government to decide for us, and for the women most intimately involved. For the same reason, they think the government should be deciding who can get married and who can't.
Republican presidents tend to disparage polls, and are fond of saying that they never pay any attention to them. Why should they? According to the king model, the people are only important because they get some say in who will be king. But the president/king's job is to rule, in whatever way he sees fit.
Democrats, on the other hand, tend to see the world as a bottom-up proposition, rooted in the pre-historic tradition of hunter-gatherers, and the more recent tradition of democracies.
Democrats find evolution easier to accept, because they come to the world with a bottom-up model. They tend to see government as an extension of the people, there to serve and represent the voters.
Because Democrats think in bottom-up terms, they don't believe that disagreeing with the current president is unpatriotic. This makes them less likely to work in lock-step along party lines, and more willing to take a variety of opinions, and vote more diversely.
Because Democrats think in bottom-up terms, they tend to trust the judgment of individuals more, and to be more willing to acknowledge the fact that authorities don't always have the ultimate answer. They tend to think that, until we know for certain when a fetus becomes a person, decisions about abortions should be left to the judgment of those involved. They tend to believe that the government should not tell people whom they can marry.
Democratic presidents neither disparage polls nor slavishly follow them. They understand that they are in a position to know things, and give attention to things, that the average voter isn't, but they also understand that they are in that position not as an authority or king, but as a representative of the people. Something more like a high-powered community organizer than a dictator. They tend to think that the power they wield is not their power, but the citizen's power.
The list could go on, but the basic point is that these tendencies—and they are tendencies, not rules—are fairly good predictors of how Democrats and Republicans will react to a crisis.
In the current crisis, the Republican president attempted to use the sense of emergency to make the country more top-down. He tried to push a measure through Congress which would move an enormous amount of power from Congress to the executive branch. And he tried to do this by exerting pressure on Congress to move quickly and without thinking things through. He behaved exactly like a king.
On the other hand, many Republicans resist the measure, for reasons that are also rooted in a top-down worldview. They see the proposed move as an intrusion of the government (the king) into matters which they think should be private.
This may strike some as contradictory. Aren't Republicans the very people who think it is natural for the king to meddle in the affairs of individuals? For the authority to lay down the law?
But notice that the one area in which Republicans most resist government intervention is business, and business is the one area in which government intervention tends to undermine top-down forces. The less government intervention, the more the economic world is dictated by the wealthy elite: the people at the top.
So the split in the Republican party on this issue is a split between two top-down instincts. The instinct of the President to accumulate political power, and the instinct of free-market capitalists to preserve top-down economic power.
Meanwhile, the Democrats find themselves in the middle. As representatives of the bottom and middle, they are convinced, on the whole, that something does need to be done quickly.
On the other hand they are not happy with the power grab by the president (a measure that stipulated there could be no oversight whatsoever, even by the courts), and they are also not happy that the measure does nothing directly for the people at the bottom of the crisis.
Their tendency is to work to amend the measure to limit the power grab, and force the top-down structures of the financial market to work with the people at the bottom, to allow loans to be restructured so that people can continue to pay, rather than losing their homes, etc.
And what about the candidates?
Their positions are not that far from those of their parties.
Obama wants to be sure there's adequate oversight. Because he sees the government as an extension of the citizenry, he wants to make sure that our money is well invested: that the purchase, and eventual sale, of these assets is structured so that the citizens aren't left holding the bag. He wants relief for homeowners, and he wants to make sure the Wall Street elite don't end up walking away with the profits.
McCain's proposal, to create a bipartisan governing board, is an attempt to deal with both sides of the Republican love/hate relationship with their top-down worldview. He would rather leave the already top-down economic structure alone and unregulated, but the crisis makes that impossible.
On the other hand, he fears the idea of giving the king (for that is how he perceives the government) too much power—especially when it is power over the other elites, on Wall Street. A governing board is a sort of compromise between the fear and love of authority.
Also, he's in an odd position here. On one hand he might not be so concerned if he knew he would be the king, but this very crisis is making it more likely that the king concerned will be a dreaded Democrat.
The candidates' behavior, however, says more than their theories.
Obama, the bottom-up candidate, is more interested in process. He is very aware that he is not yet President, and not yet in charge of that process; so he is wary of jumping into the middle, as a candidate, and disturbing delicate negotiations. On the other hand, he sees an important role for the candidates as leaders, to help bring the country together behind the process.
So, he went directly to McCain, out of the view of the press, to privately suggest that they put together a joint statement in order to demonstrate a bipartisan unity in the face of the crisis.
McCain, however, does not see the role of president as a representative and leader of the process, but as a king, a leader in the top-down, military sense, who whips underlings into shape. He wants to demonstrate that he's the strong-man, the decider.
So he announces that he is calling off his campaign, in order to go to Washington and solve the crisis.
At this point, even their language betrays their respective orientations.
McCain:
"I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis."
Notice the assumption of top-downness, with McCain at the top. He "directs" his campaign to work with the Obama campaign, and the Commission, to do what he has decided they will do. Apparently the Obama campaign nor the Commission have any choice in the matter.
This is reminiscent of Bush's tactics of refusing to talk to other countries unless they capitulate in advance. Or Bush's tendency to tell Congress what to do. The connection is obvious. Both Bush's tactics, and McCain's come straight out of a top-down worldview.
Obama:
"My attitude is we need to be focused on solving the problem ... but I think it is also important that we communicate to the American people where we need to go in getting us out of this situation," the Democrat said.
"I think it's possible to do both."
The Illinois senator said he had spoken to McCain in the afternoon and had been under impression that their staffs were working together on a joint statement, adding McCain had told him they should join a bipartisan effort to ease the crisis in Washington.
"Now, when I got back to the hotel, he had gone on television to announce what he intended to do," he said.
Obama said he had been in constant touch with top congressional leaders on the campaign trail, and said it was not yet necessary to go back to Washington.
"I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once.
"With respect to the debates, it's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess."
Notice the importance he places on democratic process, on keeping the citizens in the loop. Notice the total absence of any attempt to see himself as a hero, about to inject himself into a controversy and whip people into shape.
All of that comes out of a bottom-up view. Obama sees the role of president, not as the natural adversary of the Congress and the citizens, but as a representative of the people, and a co-leader with the other branches of government.
Of course both are acting politically, as well. But even this betrays their worldviews.
Obama thinks that the citizens of the United States will appreciate a calm and measured approach, one that respects the ongoing democratic process and the people's right to be fully informed: the kind of behavior one might expect from the president of a democracy.
McCain thinks that the citizens of the United States will be impressed by sudden changes of direction, by authoritarian posturing, and by refusal to cooperate with the other side: the kind of ploys a king or dictator might use to stay in power.
Insofar as their bases share their worldviews, they may both be right.
