Government, as an entity that exists to protect the interest of we the people, is broken. To many millions of voters, both liberal and conservative, this is hardly news.
For most American citizens, political representation and economic participation is unfairly allocated to those few people with the money and power to demand and receive preferential treatment. This is because our political landscape is dominated by conflicting agendas and interest groups, few of which represent the needs of the people.
It is a circumstance that robs average people of political relevancy and economic opportunity, both on the left and on the right. As a result, whether one believes the solution is liberal or conservative most people recognize that the score is rarely in their favor.
And no, this isn’t simply politics as usual. It didn’t always used to be like this. There have been periods when our politicians could find common ground, or at least enough to benefit the lives of average people. And during these times average Americans prospered as more people saw their lives improve. Although it was never perfect, if such a thing could even be imagined, it worked.
So what happened? Money happened. Power happened. Greed happened. And on top of this, deep, divisive partisan ideology happened. Together they form a toxic brew of special-interest dominated politics resulting in a persistently dysfunctional government.
Of course these forces have always been there, but as long as average people were treated more or less fairly these forces were kept in check. Our experience with the Gilded Age taught us the risks of unrestrained, corrupt politics and economics.
So we changed course, spurred on by the populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We adopted a strong populist agenda that resulted in great social and economic mobility for much of society,including prosperity for businesses.
But then things went off course, resulting in inequality that's unprecedented since before the Depression[i]. Various things contributed to this, but arguably none more than the conscious decision to embrace a virulently individualistic, special-interest fueled political reality.
When upon taking office Ronald Reagan opined that “Government is the problem”[ii] he set in motion a series of events that unleashed the forces of special-interest power and greed. In doing so we traded the interests of mainstream society for a reality in which political and economic participation is sold to the highest bidders.
So what can we do about it? Liberals blame the conservative policies of the Reagan Era and beyond, and the evidence of the past four decades seems to validate them. Yet Conservatives claim that the problem stems from burdensome liberal policies, and if Government would just get out of the way an economic “nirvana” awaits, at least for the privileged few.
On issue after issue there seems to be little common ground, and on many there is none at all. It is between these two polarized worldviews that society hangs in the balance, left feeling powerless to do anything about it.
But regardless who's right or wrong, from the perspective of average people Government remains dysfunctional for all but a minuscule number of powerful elites. The result is that life has become more difficult for the vast majority of people, regardless of their political leaning. Real incomes have stagnated, dual-earner households are the norm and many people face bleak, uncertain futures. In short, the American Dream is slipping away and hard work is no longer enough.
Yet on the most critical issues facing the nation Democrats and Republicans are unable to put the needs of the people before their pursuit of ideological purity, special interest demands and money. It's no wonder that average citizens are distrustful of Government and chomping at the bit for a new political reality. It is a feeling that is validated by the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Although the two are about as opposite as they can be, each in his own way has tapped into society’s frustration with partisan, special-interest politics.
Additional evidence of voter disillusionment is seen in the growth of so-called political Independents. According to a Gallup Poll, 42% of Americans identified themselves as Independents, compared to 29% for Democrats and 26% for Republicans[iii]. This is up from 36% in 2008, suggesting that the relevancy gap between voters and parties is widening. Although many people who call themselves “independent” will reliably vote for one party or another, the mere fact they don't want to acknowledge party affiliation indicates voter unease with the state of politics.
Yet the political establishment, along with its partners in the mainstream media, continues to tell us that if we just had the right policies, the right members of Congress, the right Justices, and the right President then our country will once again exist for everyone. But as the evidence never seems to support this then maybe it's time to consider that the problem, and ultimately the solution, is actually none of the above.
That's right; maybe our political reality has become so dominated by intense partisan belief and special-interest money that our traditional ideologies are no longer able to benefit the lives of average people in a consistent, meaningful way. To the extent this is true it would explain why adjusting the “mix” within our political paradigm never seems to get us anywhere, and why blaming the Government has become such a popular response.
Although it's admittedly tempting to blame uncompromising political ideologies mixed with the influence of big money in politics as the cause of political dysfunction, and there's certainly no shortage of evidence to support this argument, maybe all this stuff is simply the result of a defective political decision making process that is teetering on the edge of chaos. Because while the very practice of politics inflames the emotions, and has done so throughout history, it is also true that its impact is not equally distributed.
Why, for example, have so many other countries that adopted some form of universal health care[iv], or have adjusted their relationships between public and private entities to benefit average citizens, been able to achieve this without anywhere near the level of ideological blood-letting we see in US politics? Maybe the answer lies in the way they make political decisions, and possibly if we rethink the way we approach political decisions we too might once again make Government more relevant to average people.
Consider how we usually make non-political decisions. In most life decisions we employ the process of objective reasoning. For example, imagine you're planning to go for a walk and the outside temperature is minus two degrees. Would you be inclined to throw on your swimsuit and sandals and go for a stroll? Probably not. It’s an objective decision you would make based on a simple assessment of the evidence; it’s cold outside so dress warm.
We make these rational, non-controversial decisions all the time. We’re just naturally wired this way, which is a fortunate thing because if we weren’t we might have died out ages ago. Furthermore, we apply this objective reasoning in our lives every day, and many of our most important life decisions are arrived at objectively.
Who we marry. When we start families. Career choices, investment choices, health choices. We typically approach these and many more important decisions with some form of objective reasoning. And although decision making skills very considerably, most of us at least make an attempt to maximize the value of our decisions by employing some form of objective, evidence-based logic. We do this for the simple reason that we want to get the most out of our lives, and objective reasoning happens to be the most consistent and reliable way to accomplish this.
So it’s rare that people look back on past decisions and wish that they had been less careful and less objective in making choices. It’s just not how we operate. Nor is it how the world works.
Take business and commerce for example. In business the pursuit of the profit motive is a universal objective among economically-motivated entities. For aside from the ethical and moral aspects one way or the other, businesses usually try to make as much money as possible.
In fact, the profit motive is central to capitalism. It’s why most economic activity does not follow any subjective belief system. Rather, businesses objectively adapt their behavior to a constantly changing economic environment with the singular mission of maximizing profits. To do otherwise may be bad for business, which would be contrary to the central business objective. Not that this doesn’t happen.
Consider the case of Chick-Fil-A where an executive’s disagreement over same-sex marriage resulted in a maelstrom of controversy. This was followed by a public reversal of the company’s position when it recognized the potential impact to the bottom line[v]. So although individual executives felt otherwise, they chose the strategy that, based on market evidence, was the most objectively productive option.
Science and technology is another important objective-driven area of human endeavor. To approach either of these disciplines subjectively instead of objectively would be a disaster, and when we did it resulted in some bizarre outcomes.
For example, it was once widely believed that that illness was spread through “bad air”[vi]. Yet through the process of objective, scientific inquiry this belief was eventually disproved and replaced by Germ Theory, an event that saved the lives of millions[vii].
Or imagine if when the Wright Brothers and others were building the first airplanes they rejected Bernoulli’s Principal[viii], which describes the phenomenon of lift, and instead proceeded on the belief that planes could only fly if they had balloons tied to them. How many of us would be traveling on planes today? I suspect not very may.
In fact, throughout human history this evidence-based, objective approach has, and continues to represent, the mechanism by which civilization emerged and humanity prospered. Our science and technology, our economic prosperity, our concepts of freedom, liberty and the betterment of the human condition, everything that allowed us to advance beyond mere survival has been due to our ability to objectively reason.
Yet when it comes to politics we somehow can't get beyond the notion that objective politics makes no sense because it’s not based on emotion and special interest. This is not a problem for us in other endeavors. So why are our politicians seemingly immune to logic and reason, impervious to common sense?
Maybe it’s because they are unable to consider ideas and policies that do not conform to rigid, partisan beliefs or the goals of special-interests that influence both politicians and the political process.
Yet this state of subjective, ideologically-fueled political dysfunction is our reality only because we choose it to be. It is not set in stone.
So maybe it's time to set aside the conservative-liberal dichotomy and approach political decisions in a more objective, non-partisan manner, one that produces a greater range of policy options.
Consider that in the current conservative/liberal paradigm policies are formed either along partisan lines or through bi-partisan compromises. If a policy is based on partisan ideology then by definition it adheres mostly, if not completely, to the prevailing ideology (party) that holds power.
However, if a policy resulted from a bi-partisan compromise then we are assured that it was significantly watered down in order to survive the expected attacks from both sides. It is why bi-partisan legislation generally has no “rough edges” as they were sanded out in order to win the necessary support from across the political aisle.
So from a policy perspective, what opportunities or alternatives are missed by the partisan/bi-partisan approach? As it turns out a lot of political possibilities never get considered.
For if a policy is partisan then the country proceeds in a direction determined by ideological bias, which is invariably controlled by powerful special interests. This approach is engineered to ensure that conflicting ideas are eliminated from consideration. And if the policy does not reflect the needs of average voters, a virtual certainty as partisan politics are largely shaped by special interest forces, then society suffers as resources are inefficiently allocated to non-populist priorities.
Alternatively, if the policy is bi-partisan then the rough edges are carefully removed prior to any serious policy discussion in order to preserve ideological detente. These rough edges consist of policy alternatives that are either too ideologically impure to become partisan legislation or ideologically biased to receive bi-partisan support.
For example, imagine proposed legislation that combines core liberal and conservative ideas. The outcome might produce public policy that effectively addresses some major economic or social issue. But of course it won’t see the light of day.
The saddest part is that its inevitable death will occur not because it’s a bad solution to whatever objective it was meant to address. In fact, it might provide the single most effective policy option available. Yet it will still fail because of the way ideologies elevate beliefs above objectives. It is how belief-based political systems become dysfunctional.
The alternative is objective-based political policy, which is arguably nothing more than common sense politics. This should not be radical idea as objective reasoning is fundamental to the lives of almost all people. But it is. And the reason for this is because financially-beholden politicians have elevated special-interest demands and party politics above the interests of average people.
But as average people are relatively powerless in the political process, the political decisions with the greatest impact on our lives are shaped by the forces of subjective belief and selfish greed. So it is no surprise that average people are regularly hung out to dry.
The result is that the majority of voters have become so disillusioned with dysfunctional party politics that they identify themselves as independents. And as there is no objective “voice” to represent their concerns, at election time they're forced to choose between the two traditional alternatives, neither of which they judge useful enough to claim party identity.
This means that the largest block of voters in the country has no organized platform to embrace. They are simply pawns in the political process. Whichever mainstream party captures a majority of these voters in a given election earns the right to speak on their behalf.
But when the party in power doesn’t represent the interests of this voting majority, which in our highly-charged partisan atmosphere is nearly certain, they may change their votes next time hoping the result is different. Of course it never is. This leads to further disillusionment that that drives more voters from their parties to this political majority.
With all these discouraged voters something has to give. The inevitable inflection point will occur when Independent and disaffected voters obtain an objective, non-partisan voice in politics.
Maybe that time is now. Maybe it is time to introduce a different ideological perspective that replaces the power of political ideologues and special interests with that of average voters and taxpayers; a political ideology that rejects emotional, partisan politics and embraces objective, non-partisan solutions. Or in other words, a common sense approach that values populist objectives over partisan ideology. Maybe it is time to give a voice to the voiceless. Maybe it is time for Realism.
This Diary was excerpted from a recently released essay called The Realism Manifesto: A Vision to Reclaim the American Dream, which is posted on the author's new blog Realism Now.
