Why Is ‘Politicization’ So Partisan?

This was a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. My only question is: Who is Jennifer Szalai and why wasn't she identified in the article or masthead. (Yes, I know I could look it up, but the Magazine has a capricious way of identifying contributors.)

Politics is the business of gaining, maintaining and wielding the power of the state to coerce its people. The basis and the means by which this is done should be the subject of this discussion: for it is this that is breaking down in America. It is not so much that we disagree but that our mechanisms to reconcile our disagreements are in danger of breaking down such as the integrity and harmony of our polity is being threatened. Madison created a system for us to reconcile our differences by explicitly limiting the power of the Federal Government and having that power legitimized through an elected legislatures. In recent decades the power of the Federal Government has grown to an extent unrecognizable to the Framers while Congress has been suborned by interests that make it impossible for it to perform its required duty of reconciliation because it has lost legitimacy. Time for a rethink!

The accusation of “politicization” has been weaponized as a defense for partisan positions that are, simply, indefensible. Perhaps someday when we start treating each other as fellow Americans, politicization will return to its historical meaning.

"Centrist elites, whether to the right or to the left, want to believe in truths universally acknowledged; politics becomes easier and smoother and less rancorous that way." A typical caricature of the center, if ever there was one. It's not that liberals -- we at the center, whether center-left or center-right -- "want to believe in truths universally acknowledged"; it is rather that we acknowledge the simple truth that intractable political differences -- what makes progressives progressive and what makes conservatives conservative -- are hardly going to be resolved and reconciled especially in this hyperpartisan era. If they were, then the two camps wouldn't be what they are anymore. So instead of harping on divisive ideological fault lines, is it not more prudent to focus on the things that we can work on together? Look, for example, at what just happened recently. While conservatives were all about tax reform and progressives were all about single payer, 8 million kids were on the verge of losing health care. You know who kept their eyes on the ball? The center. https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/914117084317196288 Over and over again. https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/917558102630830080 But sure, we're the problem.

"Politicization" is the accusation that one group will use an event or tragedy to further a political cause. As an accusation it is meant to shut down debate, discussion, and usually to accept responsibility for the policy that allowed the tragedy. Let's face it - how can you not talk about gun policy when 20 school children and their teachers are mowed down? When a man with more than 1000 rounds wounds 500 and kills more than 50 concert-goers? How can ignoring the deaths of so many be the right thing to do? Politicians politicize. They dissemble. They dodge responsibility. They pander. TV talking heads and pundits politicize. They yell, they shout over people, they fabricate, they bloviate, they say whatever it takes to score points and boost ratings. I could handle politicization, if after everyone shut up, they went out and did something useful to actually fix the problems.

The use of this term, as with the phrase "political correctness" and the general assault on government (public schools in places called by some "government" schools") happens when goods reached by agreement are replaced by absolutes. We need to go back to teaching civics and the proper understanding of the method or rhetoric in reaching our agreements.

This piece is spot on and the final paragraph says it all.. The term in question is part of our general assault on government and politics in general. It also assumes an arbiter of truth outside of politics when politics isn't about universal, historical and timeless truths (of which there are few) but about the historical and contingent. Its the same problem that exists with political correctness.

To be politicized wouldn't be an issue if moderates from center-left to center-right were the politicians, but ideological extremists have corrupted political discourse and made governance dysfunctional. Politics is not the problem when country comes first, then party, with compromise and consensus. Democracy simply doesn't function well from outside the political center. Voters can fix this by voting only for moderates. These politicians (in both parties) will solve problems and get things done for the greater good because they actually know what that is. Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/ Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism

Interesting how there is an attempt to highlight the dangers of "politicization" ... but it's only highlighted from ONE side. Is that not politicization? If you're going to pretend to put forth an objective argument, at least try to present rational examples from both sides.

points well-taken but I remain struck by false equivalence. Is the rest of the world a fair arbitrator?

Politics are so polarized because The Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys' Cabal has worked to make it so for 40+ years. Thanks to Reagan gutting anti-trust laws and Alan Greenspan promoting laissez-faire economics. According to Wikipedia, "Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies." That is what allowed facebook, google, microsoft, twitter and every other social media company become so big and profitable. That is what allowed BIG corporations, via Wall Street and other "markets", to become so powerful. That is what killed competition. That is what is destroying democracy in America. Greed. How sinister is it? Read this article to see how The Con Don was installed to lurk around OUR white house as the Robber Barons and their operatives dismantle and destroy OUR democracy every single day. They are going for the world and only WE THE PEOPLE - together - can stop them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/facebook-and-google-h...

Politicization today is dangerous for two reasons. One is that politics in general has become a morality play. People claim that holding a particular political viewpoint makes them morally superior to others--who automatically become morally inferior. And that superiority entitles those claiming it to do all kinds of things that aren't morally superior at all, like harassing the inferior people on line, calling them names, etc. The other problem with politicization is that it demands public statements of what used to be considered private thoughts. People used to not tell others how they voted. Today, people are not only asked but often required to take a stand on something. And that stand better be the right one, or you could lose a lot. Saying you don't choose to discuss it is seen as the same as taking the wrong side.