Over the years I watched radical partisanship grow from an annoying distraction in the Congress into a full blown threat to effective governance. In the early eighties the far right was beginning to make itself felt. The far left was still alive and active on the other side of the aisle.

At the time, I observed that what the Congress needed were more truly conservative Conservatives and truly liberal Liberals. You see there is nothing remotely conservative – as traditionally defined – about the Republican right. And the Democratic left that calls itself “liberal”, shows none of the qualities of tolerance for differing views – a central liberal tenant. In fact, the far left is the source of much of Political Correctness, which is an intolerant movement that claims to be fighting intolerance.

What has happened is that radicals from both ends of the spectrum increasingly dominated their respective parties and leave the moderates of both parties sucking air.

Both extremes converged on Sept. 29th to defeat the Wall Street Bail Out bill. They defied the President and both parties’ leaders on an issue that most informed observers believed was the most critical economic crisis for the United States and the world in our life time. It is, alas, not a lonely example, only the most dramatic.

How have these two equal and opposite extremes come to be so powerful in our Democracy? What can be done about it? And when?

Following the 2000 census the House of Representatives was redistricted. For whatever reason, most incumbents were frozen in safe seats. Republicans were given a host of Republican voters. Democrats got nearly every Starbucks in existence. This resulted in only 35 to 50 of the 435 House seats actually being “in play” where candidates of either party had a decent chance of winning the seat.

So what?

A district dominated by one party is not necessarily a district with no contest. What typically happens is that factions of that party begin to maneuver for position. Usually the more extreme wing of the party finds the incumbent entirely too “moderate” and a campaign is mounted in the primary to take the incumbent out.

Maryland’s primary this year is a great example. One moderate Republican, Wayne Gilchrest, and one moderate Democrat, Al Wynn, were defeated in the primary by candidates that were clearly more extreme. So, that means both party caucuses will move a little farther to the extreme next year.

But it doesn’t stop there. The threat of challenge by a radical is recognized by every moderate incumbent. So they move in the direction of the more rigid policy positions. Their voting tends to become more ideologically “correct.” That makes each caucus less centered and more extreme, less willing to compromise.

When it comes time to get something done – like trying to save the world’s financial stability – the two sides can combine to totally stymie any action.

Here is an important truth about democracy: It cannot work without compromise. If each of us is to have the freedom to believe what we want and act on our beliefs, AND if we also want to solve common problems, we have to compromise. Otherwise problems just sit and fester.

Caucuses dominated by ideological hard liners seem to think that if only their philosophy were to be embraced in every aspect all problems would disappear. The common sense conservative and the liberal with his or her head screwed on straight – the very people who could find ways to meet crises and make things run – are marginalized. That is happening with frequency right now.

A census is due in 2010. Redistricting will follow. Let’s hope that this time more states will turn to non-partisan independent panels to draw the lines. We’ll end up with more balanced districts and that will mean that people will again be able to choose their representatives instead of the politicians choosing their constituents.

Incumbents will howl because they will be losing “safe” seats. Yeah, “safe” until the radicals of their own party come for them.