Dem
47
GOP
53
Did you know that the company that publishes the Guinness Book of World Records isn't really in the publishing business anymore? Yes, they still produce an annual copy of their signature "reference" work, but that's not how they pay the bills. Their primary source of income is staging world-record attempts. That is to say, a business that wants some publicity for their event will contact Guinness, and ask the company to concoct a world record that company can break. Then, that company will promote their event: "Come to our event at which we are introducing our newest sprockets, at which we will try to set a world record for the tallest stack of sprockets ever assembled!"
The world's dictionary publishers are in something of a similar predicament. Relatively few people buy paper dictionaries anymore, and so those publishers have to think of a way to draw attention to their websites, where they make (most of) their money from advertising. One of the best tricks for getting those extra clicks is to announce a "word of the year," because various news outlets and commentators (including us) are suckers for that, as a useful marker of the zeitgeist.
Yesterday, Merriam-Webster announced its word of the year, and we must say, they chose well. First, the runners-up, which were presented in random, unranked order:
You can see how this year's presidential contest permeates much of the list. So, it's not too surprising that the word of the year is also a political word. It is... polarization.
We don't have much to say about Merriam-Webster's selection process, other than they seem to have chosen well. Of course, they have stats about what pages are being clicked on the most, so it wasn't too hard for them to figure out what words are getting disproportionate attention. The one thing we do have to add is this question: Is there ANY hope that there will be a year, in the next four, where "polarization" would not be an appropriate choice for word of the year? We are not optimistic, obviously. That said, let us try to imagine the best-case scenario.
To start, Donald Trump and his rhetoric are both getting old. He's back to carping about the exact same things as always; yesterday it was how "nasty" and "unfair" Kristen Welker was during her Meet the Press interview of the President-elect. We know, beyond all doubt, that people on the left are tired of Trump's shtick as a politician, which has now been on display for nearly 10 years. We have plenty of reason to believe that many people on the right are tired of it, too. And Trump is a lame duck, and could become lamer (ducker?) if mental or physical health problems limit him. Maybe he won't be able to stir the pot as much in the next 4 years as he's been able to in the last 10.
On top of that, the precarious balance in Congress, and in particular the House, is somewhat designed to encourage reaching across the aisle. Mike Johnson talks like a hardliner Republican, but he's shown numerous times that if the easier path is "get some Democratic votes" as opposed to "placate the Freedom Caucusers," he's willing to choose the former. Indeed, it looks like he's about to do so yet again in the next few weeks (see above).
Finally, there are some legitimate opportunities for bipartisan compromises. Something related to healthcare (see above) is a possibility. So is something related to the border. Donald Trump does not care about policy; he cares about "wins." So, he might well sign a bill that reflects a largely Democratic vision of policy, as long as he can claim credit for it. Meanwhile, a lot of the things that Trump and his appointees say they want to do are certainly anathema to Democrats... but are also anathema to many Republicans, too. So, the incoming administration's most extreme impulses are likely to be blunted.
We are certainly not bipartisanship Pollyannas the way that, say, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) is. But we can at least imagine a world in which things in the next 4 years are less nasty than everyone fears. (Z)