"The politics of polarization by provocation is a perfect plan. ... A sure-fire way to retire the playbook is to impose a meaningful penalty for its use."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT:  Mr. Guess is pointing out that the problem exists on both sides of the political spectrum. I personally don't give a damn who started the "politics of polarization by provocation" or who said what about whom. I just know that I'm tired of people at all levels who seem incapable of carrying a conversation or making a comment without vitriol, without some form of condemnation or insult. I see that level of intercourse in politics and, unfortunately, from many people in these forums almost daily. I have read many very good ideas and comments herein, but they are often over-ridden by the "politics of polarization". I will keep reading and hope for better dialogue while trying to filter out the vitriol. Damn, I hate preaching!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rudy Giuliani and the politics of polarization by provocation…
By Andre Kimo Stone Guess, February 24, 2015

Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments about President Obama and his lack of love for America are part of growing and trending tide on our cultural and political landscape — polarization by provocation. The question that begs isn’t whether Giuliani actually believes the divisive words that poured out of his mouth, but why he felt comfortable enough to spew them in a public setting where he knew it would be reported.

There have been numerous cases of prominent cultural and political figures who have taken a dip in what they thought was their private, or at least non-public, stream of consciousness only to find out that there were uninvited guests in the waters — Former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s recorded conversations with his mistress and Mitt Romney’s soliloquy about the 47 percent are shining examples of this. The difference between their gaffes and Giuliani’s comments is that Giuliani knew he was speaking publicly. So, again why did he feel comfortable saying such caustic comments in a public forum? His words are part and parcel of the new political playbook.

For all that is being said about Giuliani, one thing is clear — the man is not stupid. A savvy leader with his experience routinely assesses the political costs and benefits of his words and actions. One of the reasons that Giuliani and other politicians and political surrogates, on both sides of the aisle, feel comfortable pulling from the playbook of polarization by provocation is because they understand the same thing that the New England Patriots understand — politics is not about playing by the rules, it’s about winning.

Giuliani’s comments are viewed by many as just another subversive shot across the racial bow to continue to characterize President Obama as an “other.” One would think, particularly from a moral perspective, that there would be hell to pay for the ongoing use of these tactics. As enigmatic as this exercise may be, the explanation for the employment of such a strategy in the political game can be found in the numbers.

The 2012 presidential election made two things abundantly clear: Democrats have the black popular vote sewn up and Republicans don’t need the black vote to win.

An astounding 93 percent of black voters voted Democrat in the 2012 presidential election while only 39 percent of whites voted for the Dems. For the first time in history black voter participation (as a percentage of eligible voters) was higher than whites — 66 percent vs. 64 percent. The Republicans lost the White House by 4 percentage points. There are 3 ways in which Republicans can make up those four percentage points in 2016 (assuming the base of votes from 2012 stays intact): 1) Have people who never voted before to vote Republican; 2) Have people who voted Democrat in 2012 to vote Republican; 3) Have people who voted Democrat in 2012 stay home.

It is clear from the above that Nos. 1 and 2 are not successful strategies for the Republicans as it relates to the black vote. Many blacks are so sickened by the perceived or real racial politics played by the right during the tenure of President Obama that they wouldn’t even think of voting Republican even if their political agendas were perfectly aligned. However, No. 2 is very much a viable option for non-black voters, especially the 39 percent of white voters who voted Democrat in 2012.

The mere fact that there will not be a viable black candidate at the top of the ticket in 2016 will bring No. 3 into play for the Republicans without them having to do anything due to attrition and fatigue of black voters. You could also make the argument that voter suppression is a strong offensive tactic that is being employed in support of No. 3.

So according to the numbers, a winning strategy for Republicans in 2016 could be to maintain the base and get enough of the 39 percent (to make a difference) of whites who voted for Obama to have buyers’ remorse. The politics of polarization by provocation is a perfect plan.

Democrats will continue to take the black vote for granted and Republicans will continue to ignore or even antagonize black voters as long as blacks consciously decide to keep all of their eggs in one political basket. All groups, no matter how big or how small need to heed the words of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.”

Blacks and other minority groups need to propagate a political agenda that embodies their interests and use their political, cultural and social leverage to push that agenda without forming any permanent allegiances or grudges along the way. A sure-fire way to retire the playbook is to impose a meaningful penalty for its use. This can only be accomplished by engagement at all levels of the political process and on both sides of the aisle. A politician or a political party for that matter doesn’t have to like you (and vice versa) in order to vote for or support your agenda. After all, this is not the playground, it’s politics.

It may be too late for 2016 for the black vote to galvanize around this principle across both sides of the aisle, but not necessarily for the emerging Hispanic swing vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................