At its core, I think it comes down to the language of morality that’s used. Differences aren’t framed as disagreements, but often as deliberate attacks for their own sake.
It goes further: the language often doesn’t just describe policies as harmful, but conveys them as evil or immoral, either directly or by implication.
This makes compromise almost impossible. In normal negotiation, sides might trade policy priorities—accepting cuts in one area to strengthen another. But when every issue is framed this way it’s no longer a deal making compromise. It’s compromising, moral values.
This is then especially a problem in primary races where a challenger can attack any and all bipartisanship as absolute failure.
I agree with your insight: the language of morality. This use of the language of morality seems to be a consequence of the 1980s subsumption of the Republican party by the US' evangelical christians, the "moral majority". By capturing the "values voters", the Republican party got its policies blessed or ordained by God. That means Republicans have to frame opposition in moral terms - it is, to them.
Per Newt Gingerich’s strategy, in the early 90s it actually became the de facto standard for the GOP as a whole to shift to this language. It was deliberate strategy, it didn’t happen by accident. It was pretty brazen and cynical too, with the title giving away the real intent:
Someone once pointed out to me that the only difference between "special interest" and "public interest" is who said it. I think about that a lot these days.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
I know many Christians who are willing to compromise in both business & government and hold nuanced opinions about a variety of topics. Sounds more like Barry has a bias and is projecting that bias
While individual Christians may hold nuanced opinions on a variety of topics, collectively, they often exhibit more uniformity in their views, especially in contexts like business and government. Barry Goldwater's point about their unwillingness to compromise stems from the belief that they are acting in the name of God, which can lead to a more rigid stance, as we have seen.
i think the "language of morality" is a sign of the problem but not at the core of it. especially when the morality itself flip/flops every other day.
i think the core of it is tribalism mixed to unrelenting fear-mongering.
tribalism is probably unavoidable. meanwhile the world is becoming more and more complex and unknowable and "anxiogène" (anxiety inducing? i do not have a good word for this).
education is meant to fight this... and it has been under attack for a while now.
the failure to educate renders the world even more unknowable for vast and wide swathes of the population; and i am not talking about a rich/poor divide here, the "tech bro" stereotype fits right there. a "complete education" is not seen as valuable anymore.
many people will throw away a chance at a better world in exchange of a bad world that they "get", this is a natural tendency. especially when the going is bad for the common folk.
my unsubstantiated opinion is that those reasons are why you see more and more simplified speech, simplified world views, anti-intellectualism and other ills prevail.
politics being dominated by corrupt thieves, sycophants, and immoral lobbyists certainly did not help... not mentioning the state of media (social and traditional).
tldr:
- people are afraid so stick to their tribes
- people do not/cannot trust the institutions anymore
- education and thinking itself is under attack
- people are hurting so they cling to what they can
It goes further: the language often doesn’t just describe policies as harmful, but conveys them as evil or immoral, either directly or by implication.
This makes compromise almost impossible. In normal negotiation, sides might trade policy priorities—accepting cuts in one area to strengthen another. But when every issue is framed this way it’s no longer a deal making compromise. It’s compromising, moral values.
This is then especially a problem in primary races where a challenger can attack any and all bipartisanship as absolute failure.