Dawidziak: Polarized politics hurt us all

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last week, and the justice observers paid the closest attention to was Anthony Kennedy -- the moderate. As the swing vote on the court, he's often the most influential. In fact, this Supreme Court has jokingly been referred to as "The Kennedy Court."

The court is a microcosm for the electorate at large: Moderates are the "swing voters" who tend to decide elections. But, while they still make up about a third of voters, their numbers are decreasing. The number of Americans who describe themselves as moderate has fallen from a high in 1992 of about 43 percent to about 35 percent today.

Certainly, moderates have become an endangered species in Congress. Just listen to the reasoning Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) gave when she announced her surprise retirement in February. Snowe, who had frequently served in the role of influential swing voter, cited the "dysfunction and political polarization" in the Senate. "Simply put," she said, "the Senate is not living up to what the Founding Fathers envisioned."

She's right. The founders felt they had fashioned a form of government where all voices would be heard and compromise and consensus-building could happen. It can still work that way -- it just rarely does. The founders particularly felt this way about the Senate, which they looked at as a body where cooler and wiser heads would prevail.

It's unlikely they'd recognize their vision today.

Gone are the days when moderates made up a critical voting block in both houses of Congress. Also gone are the moderate voices of reason who could bring sanity to the debate and build bridges between opposing ideologies. The days when senators such as Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), John Danforth (R-Mo.) and John Chafee (R-R.I.) were respected for their unifying influence are far in the rearview mirror. Snowe's fellow senator from Maine, Republican Susan Collins, is one of the very few moderates left.

At a time when the American people demand action on critical problems, partisan gridlock has become the rule in Washington. In an ideological civil war, instead of North and South, lawmakers have divided into conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, red and blue.

These divisions are exacerbated by super PACs spending untold millions on election campaigns. The vast majority are ideologically motivated, so candidates who accept their money are driven further to the right or left. While most of the media coverage of super PACs has centered on the spending being funneled into the presidential campaigns, voters should pay attention to their state and local races.

With little or no disclosure required, these organizations can easily dump a million or two into a congressional race. While most local observers are keying in on the likely rematch between Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) and Republican Randy Altschuler as the barnburner on Long Island this year, the kind of money super PACs can funnel in could make almost any race competitive.

The result is that voters will be getting more candidates espousing the more extreme positions advocated by these shadowy committees. So they need to ignore the rhetoric and support candidates who propose solutions based on common sense, compromise and consensus.

Olympia Snowe said last month, "Public service is a most honorable pursuit, and so is bipartisanship." She's right -- but perhaps she's understating it. Elected officials not working together is no longer an option we can afford -- and voters have the power to correct the course.

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.