One Nation Or Competing Groups?

 

ONE NATION OR COMPETING GROUPS?

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.     9-12

 

ABSTRACT:  The current political status of the United States as composed of competing rather than cooperating groups is explored and is posited as the major reason for governmental gridlock.

 

KEY WORDS:  governmental gridlock, political parties, competition, cooperation

 

Many citizens are unhappy with the recent gridlock in government in the United States.  Congress often seems to be in a fairly constant state of deadlock, incapable of or unwilling to pass any legislation until some deadline or crisis forces action.  There is no centrist voice in politics saying that he or she wants to do as much as possible for all Americans, without making ideological commitments, rather than trying to gain votes by promising to carry out a number of small and relatively extreme policies (which are almost never actually carried out once the candidate is in office).  The two-party political system, a warlike metaphor for politics, a consumption-driven trend toward self-centeredness, media attention to special interest groups, and the growing diversity in the country are mainly responsible for this.

Having only two major political parties creates a tendency for those two to oppose each other on major policy questions (and to evolve so as to oppose each other more and more).  Once opposing views are taken on a major policy question, people gravitate to the side that they agree with more, and by the time opposing views on a number of major issues are taken, the two political parties become more entrenched and look like camps (or armies) doing battle.  This solidarity is an illusion, though, because most voters feel strongly about (and therefore identify with their party) on only one or two issues.  The tendency for people to form groups makes it seem like there is more solidarity in the group than there actually is.  If there were seven or eight somewhat smaller political parties, this illusion of huge blocks fighting each other would be diminished.

Politics in this country (and probably in many countries) is viewed largely through military metaphors of conflict, loyalties, battles, and winning.  This brings out our adrenaline, since being in a fight makes it seem to us as if we are in some sort of danger, whether we are or not, and it promotes solidarity with other party members, even if we don’t like them or disagree with them on many issues.  There is no necessity (other than selfishness) for politics to be a struggle or battle.  It is viewed “naturally” as a struggle or battle only because we want our own way on matters that seem significant to us.

Businesses have nurtured the false belief that consumers who purchase their products can “have it their way,” which has encouraged the narcissism in us and encouraged us to believe that we “should” be able to have it our way.  It is natural to human beings to want to reduce all barriers to gratification, but when this is translated into politics, it suggests to us that we “should” be able to have the country the way we alone want it, which is certainly unrealistic (and undemocratic as well, if you think about it).  A greater appreciation for the unmanageability of reality and of our lives might make us more humble with respect to our assumption that others “should” agree with us and that since they are simply pig-headed if they don’t agree with us, we should fight with them about the matter.

Political parties have tried to gain voters by appealing to a number of small special interest groups, with interests that may be consistent with but not of much interest to the majority of party members or voters.  Stopping immigration or abortion rights might be examples.  These groups tend to get more publicity than they “deserve,” because of the media’s desire for arousing and inflammatory things to report.  Media coverage actually fuels the conflicts inherent in these special interest positions.  (Media would argue that the public should know about these groups and their causes, but they ignore the fact that people are not rational, logical beings and that what we see becomes our assumption about what is reality.)

The growing diversity in this country is psychologically threatening to most citizens, since human beings are by nature fearful of difference, and if diverse groups have different views on values questions, this threat is greater.  The “accepted wisdom” is that we should celebrate diversity and tolerate those who are different from us, but fundamentally if those differences suggest that our way of life is going to be altered, we will be scared and will want to ensure that what we treasure will not be changed or harmed.  As long as the groups of those who are “different” are quite small, tolerance is possible, but as those groups get larger (whites will be a minority in California in a year or two), the feelings of threat grow, and this motivates us to identify with and support groups that promise to fight to preserve what we value.

 

The Cooperative Alternative

The alternative to this competitive, martial approach to politics is the view that governmental decisions should always be made on the basis of what is best for everyone in the country—in other words, a cooperative rather than a competitive approach.  In this cooperative approach, all parties (and individuals) would seek to understand the views and values of all other parties and people and would work together to find the best possible policies and solutions to problems that we all have in common.

Of course, each group cannot have its own preferred outcome in every matter, which means that (1) actions taken may be limited by the conclusion that some group’s values are important enough for other groups to limit what they get from the action taken; (2) all groups may agree to take some actions that benefits only one group, as long as all groups feel equally benefited in the long run; and (3) groups may “take turns” in getting what they want, as long as none of these actions is actually harmful to other groups.  The key to making this work is that in the long run all groups feel that their values and needs are respected and that they are honored sufficiently in actions taken by the total group, and that all groups benefit roughly equally from the totality of actions taken.

While a cooperative approach would reduce the level and sounds of struggle, there would still be expressions of differences.  Representatives should express clearly and completely the needs and views of their constituents, and this will always involve some differences.  A cooperative approach would still include raised voices and impassioned pleas, but it would conclude with the satisfaction of being heard and being taken seriously, rather than with a renewed determination to “win” eventually and to “vanquish” everyone who disagrees.

Currently in this country, we have a “winner take all” attitude, with which the majority party feels entitled to get everything it can for itself and its various interest groups before it loses power again.  The other party feels disrespected and disenfranchised, of course, and so feels perfectly justified in doing the same thing when it comes back into power.  The balance of voters has become quite even over the years between the two parties, as the two parties have jockeyed to attract people interested in various issues, as well as defining their worldviews in such a way as to oppose and exclude the worldviews of the other party.

Many people in this country would prefer a cooperative approach to the current “struggle of opposites” approach, but they are ignored because to recognize their desire would tend to take away the power of the current parties (who seem currently to exist in order to do battle and impose their way, and not to find solutions).  The current parties maintain themselves by finding and emphasizing seemingly unbridgeable differences, so that people will send them money (in order to defend what the contributors view as threatened values).

As one small example, currently the Republican party says that the country needs a more business-friendly climate (stable policies, available capital, low business taxes) in order for there to be more jobs for workers, while the Democratic party says that businesses need regulation in order to prevent further economic catastrophes (which are the inevitable result of the boom-bust cycle that our capital markets encourage) and that the government should use its spending and interest-influencing power to stimulate business activity and hence the addition of more jobs.  These are obviously not incompatible policy positions.  Obviously the country needs to encourage businesses to flourish, and just as obviously, from history, businesses must be prevented from taking advantage of and even harming consumers (risky stock market vehicles, shoddy or harmful products, pollution, etc.).  Both goals should be pursued, and discussions with a cooperative assumption behind them (that the goal is to get both sides as much of what they want as possible) are a feasible way to get the best solutions we can at the time, without rancor and strife.

The main obstacles to having a cooperative approach with a goal of benefiting both sides are self-centeredness and justification.  When an individual says “I want what I want, and I don’t care what anyone else wants,” the opportunity for finding joint solutions is reduced.  It seems possible, particularly in our present gridlocked situation, that by cooperating, everyone might benefit more than they will benefit from gridlock and antagonism.  As noted above, it would help if we were more humble about our “right” to have things our own way.

The other enemy of cooperation and compromise is ideological overlays onto real-life problems.  Any time that polarities are created (pro-business, anti-business; pro-environment, anti-environment), each side tries to justify its position not just with facts and rational conclusions but also with external justifications (“President Reagan said....., and therefore it must be true, no matter what the facts are”).  Any time an individual’s or religion’s ideas about what the deity wants are used to justify a position, the possibilities of compromise are virtually eliminated.  To say that God sees abortion as murder makes it impossible to compromise (although still possible to work toward reducing unnecessary or inappropriate abortions).

One of the purposes of having representative government is that representatives can represent the unique needs of their particular constituents.  If representatives act only on the needs of their own constituents, however, the result is likely to be a climate of selfishness and battle, with back-room deals and vote-trading as the only ways to get things done, with the only measure of a representative being how much bacon he or she brought home.  In other words, power rules and the goal of each constituency is to get as much as possible from the public trough before others get it.  If, however, all representatives present the needs of their constituents to the total group of representatives, and those representatives then choose among various ways to meet as many of those unique needs of all groups as possible, then most constituencies will benefit with each decision, and all constituencies will feel that they are being “taken care of” by the total group as well as they can be.

Can Things Change?

Having the total group of representatives be responsible for the welfare of all constituencies would be such a stunning change in the operations of most assemblies or congresses that we must ask whether it is at all possible.  Today, most voting is based on agreement with the candidate on vague values or a specific issue, together with popularity, likeability, and appearance.  Most people who get elected strive to put forth a persona that appeals to voters, regardless of whether it accurately portrays the candidate.  The change proposed here would suggest electing candidates for their ability to care about the total citizenry, represent their particular constituency effectively as needed, and make careful and complicated judgments between competing proposals.  The change proposed here would also require that decisions be based on the merits of the proposals and not on which stance is likely to get the representative re-elected (which might require change in the ways that campaigns are currently financed).  Perhaps we can all begin to require statements from candidates about whether they would approach things cooperatively or competitively and to cast our votes for those who can function in a cooperative model of representation.

 

blog\competitioningovernment