CONCISE GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO LIVE

 

 

CONCISE GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO LIVE

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.     8-13

 

 

 

SEEK THE TRUTH

FEEL DEEPLY

WALK IN BEAUTY

LIVE IN LOVE

Underisable Actions of Politicians That Are Natural To Human Beings

UNDESIRABLE ACTIONS OF POLITICIANS THAT ARE NATURAL TO HUMAN BEINGS

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.   7-13,9-13

ABSTRACT:  Many of the actions that politicians are criticized for are actions that many human beings in the same situation would naturally take in response to the challenges of the job.  To change these behaviors might require reconceptualizing the purpose of Congressional service, a restatement of the qualifications for candidacy, or the evolution of a morally superior human race!

KEY WORDS:  politics, politicians

Many citizens have little respect for politicians and decry many of their actions, and yet many of these actions are quite natural to human beings, and greater maturity and wisdom would be necessary in politicians if they were to behave differently.  (This analysis will focus on Federal officeholders, but the arguments apply as well to politicians at all levels.)

1. Arriving in Washington relatively inexperienced and knowing few of their peers, Congresspersons naturally seek out and ally with those who share their views, just as most of the rest of us would do.  These associations naturally grow until groups form (political parties), and in order for such a group to have enough uniformity to be recognizable and to work together purposively, parties naturally define which ideas are acceptable, and they expect conformity from their members, just as we do in families and all other groups.

2. Politicians naturally put more energy toward benefiting their friends, people they know, and those who contribute to their campaigns than they do toward benefiting other constituents or the country.  You would probably agree that inappropriate as this may be for public officials, most people would operate to some degree in this manner.

3. Most politicians are naturally (just like the rest of us) as much or more interested in being re-elected as they are in taking care of the country.

4. Political parties naturally enforce party lines and reward party loyalty on the part of members, and they are naturally hostile to Congresspersons who are not members of any party, since the independence of those persons threatens the party system.  They are also not inclined to vote for those independent persons’ efforts to benefit their constituents. 

5. In the competition for public favor, parties naturally polarize, just as the rest of us do on most social issues, in order to get attention and to sway the thinking of the public (rather than to help the public understand the complexity of issues and therefore be able to vote more intelligently).  As part of this effort, they tend to demonize the opposition, just as we see so often in city council and school board meetings at the local level.

6. Since successful politicians are pragmatic and generally unimaginative, they join in the existing re-election game, rather than trying to change it.   This involves distorting the issues to some extent to appeal to likely contributors in order to generate campaign contributions.  Since television time is very costly, the communication methods that will be most efficiently effective with us, the public, are employed by politicians, such as “sound bites,” impossible or misleading slogans, negative ads regarding their opponents, and as much as possible, avoidance of clear stands on major issues, since these are the methods that have proven to do the most toward electing a candidate.

7. In order to gather enough votes to pass bills that they want passed, given the size of the Congress, most politicians count on the party to help them (in return for their votes on bills that they don’t care that much about), and they also trade votes with other individual Congresspersons.  This results in passage of bills that might not have passed if they had been voted on by Congresspersons expressing their own opinions.

8. Given the volume of bills and the difficulty of grasping their details, most Congresspersons often vote as their friends or their parties are voting, even when they don’t know what is going on.

9. Since most politicians are willing to bend the truth in order to get what they want, just as are most members of the public, they are quite willing to issue distorted and misleading information to their constituents that they believe will appeal to the most voters.

10. Since politicians are just like us and most do not think any more clearly than we do, and because of the natural polarization of parties, most politicians view government as a win-lose competition with the goal of getting the most that they can for themselves and their friends and constituents, rather than as a cooperative enterprise for the purpose of doing what is best for the country and for people as a whole.

11. Given the volume of the work and the complicated ethical and moral issues they encounter each day, many Congresspersons, if they were willing to admit it, have great difficulty grasping the big picture of government and its effects and feel inadequate in the job.

12. Just like the rest of us, politicians strive to avoid being held responsible for anything, and in truth, what they are held responsible for by the public, through the eyes of the media, are often things that they actually have little or no responsibility for.

13. Given the enormity of the job and the personal interests involved (re-election, benefiting friends and allies), most politicians have considerable difficulty in both representing their constituents and at the same time (or at least at certain appropriate times) doing what is best for the country.

Since these various actions are “natural” to human beings, and many members of the public would do exactly the same kinds of things, is it reasonable to hope that things could be different, or is what is described above (representative government administered by real human beings) simply the best way of governing that human beings are capable of?

If politicians in general were somewhat different, the system could work more ethically and more effectively.  In several respects, this would require politicians to put the interests of their constituents and of the country above their own, more of the time.  Chief among these differences would be having their own independent minds, believing that accurately informed voters will vote in ways that result in maximum benefit to the country, and being willing at times to put the good of the country ahead of being re-elected .

If politicians had their own views, formed after serious consideration and research, and if they always voted on their convictions rather than on the views of others or according to who would be pleased with their votes (the party, big contributors, etc.), governmental actions would be more attuned to the needs of constituents and of the country.  Politicians who had their own independent minds, no matter what others said, could be comfortable with others with different views, would not gravitate toward persons with similar views (unless to work together to promote those views realistically to voters), and might or might not make an affiliation with one political party.  Of course, having an independent mind and seriously considering the issues and the data do not guarantee that politicians or voters will get to the truth or to what is best for the country, but as human beings, this gets us close as we can get.

If politicians believed in being fair to all, rather than favoring friends, family, and certain constituents, people would have more faith in government.

If politicians were willing to sacrifice re-election to do what is best for the constituents and for the country, politicians would be more respected.

If politicians wanted the best man for the job to be elected and trusted voters to make that choice, they would be more truthful during campaigns, they would not employ negative ads, and the country would be better off.

If politicians supported serious changes in our current system of big money campaigns and believed that well-informed voters will make the decisions that are best for the country, the country would be better off.

If politicians focused on informing the public about issues accurately, both in summary and in more depth, the voters would make better decisions when voting.

If politicians sought to cooperate (and sometimes compromise) for the good of all rather than fight for everything they could get, the country would feel more united.

If politicians were determined to do what is best for their constituents and at the same time do what is best for the country, they would be viewed as being wise and as having more integrity.

You might say that we are asking politicians to be perfect persons, and of course they cannot be.  However, if politicians believed in the more positive and useful behaviors described here, if elected, their behavior would benefit the country more, even if they still made some mistakes and made errors in judgment from time to time, and if not elected, the country would be better served by that.

There are several principles that would lead to better government, if practiced by politicians (as well as the rest of us), and when stated clearly, many politicians would probably agree with them, even though in practice they don’t follow them.

1. All citizens, unless specifically disenfranchised for legal reasons, should be able to vote.

2. The citizens as a whole will make the best decisions for the country—better decisions than a powerful group of citizens at the top of the status hierarchy (usually rich persons and persons with military power).  (If you don’t believe this, then you favor some other form of government, such as autocracy, oligarchy, or plutocracy.)  If you do believe this, then vote trading and trying to manipulate Congress to pass a bill you want are behaviors that work against the principles of democratic rule, since both at the citizen voter level and at the representative level, to believe in democracy means to believe that we should seek and accept the decisions of those who vote.  To try to change a decision outcome from what it naturally would be by independent and informed voters is an attempt to subvert democracy.

3. A Congressperson should look out for the welfare of her constituents, because she has a special responsibility to that group, but her primary responsibility is to do what will be best for the whole country.  Naturally, any given decision will favor some parts of the country more than others, but Congresspersons should seek to balance these outcomes over the long term.

4. Popularity is less important for a Congressperson than carrying out the above responsibilities.  In fact, those who put the welfare of the country above their own personal interests are the most respected of representatives (at least when we look back on their records).

5. The votes of Congress are only trustworthy if they are cast by persons with independent minds, since the belief that voters as a whole will make the best decisions is only justified if the group of voters contains a variety of opinions which can interact (be debated) so as to inform all voters and result in voters considering all opinions in coming to their own informed decisions. 

To vote in blocs or to vote so as to please someone else defeats the attainment of this interaction of opinions which is essential to the belief that we should seek and accept the decisions of the majority.  Voting in blocs, whether ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic, turns democracy into a competition of groups, and the largest groups will always win that competition, simply because they have more votes.  To have blocs seek their own benefit, rather than the benefit of all, overturns the principle of citizen equality that we say we believe in.  The principle of citizen equality at the ballot box implies that the wants and needs of each citizen are just as important as the wants and needs of any other citizen.

6. Informed voters make the best possible decisions, and having voters make the best possible decisions is more important to the county than electing any one individual, no matter how famous or popular.  Therefore, a politician serves the country best who makes himself known to the voters and seeks to have them make the best possible decision rather than seeking to have them elect him.  Elections, therefore, should not be contests but rather should be opportunities to inform the public so that the public will make what we believe to be the best possible decisions.  Any other approach, such as wanting to get oneself elected, is a subversion of democracy.  Campaigning, to serve democracy, should be educational rather than a competition.

It would be informative if we could have Congresspersons reveal their true beliefs regarding the above principles of democracy and the well functioning of a democratic state.  It would also be informative to know the balance within each candidate of personal motivation to be elected versus desire to benefit voters and the country.

It might also be possible to make structural changes to improve Congress’s performance.  For example, political parties could be prohibited from directing votes and from rewarding conformity to the party’s wishes, and members of Congress could be prohibited from trading votes.  Committee assignments could be made on merit and not on seniority.  Violations would be hard to locate and hard to prove, but the payoff of such expectations might be worth the effort anyway.

Having power is a strong motive for many politicians in seeking office, and that desire for power is often accompanied by a belief that might makes right, which justifies harming others and breaking rules in order to be elected.  Strong candidates appeal to many voters as well, so change in the composition of Congress would require a large number of voters to discern whether candidates are more devoted to their own benefit (power and what it can get) or to the good of others.  Our present system makes it almost impossible for people who are more devoted to the good of others to be elected, and only a decision by voters to reject candidates whose primary motive is power could change Congress.

To some extent, we as the public get what we want (or deserve) in our politicians, and it is up to each of us to decide how to positively or negatively

reinforce our politicians for what they do.  Take a moment and consider whether, if faced with this choice, you would vote for a candidate who promised to do everything possible to benefit your local area financially and to get you what you wanted even if it meant bending the rules and disadvantaging other citizens, or for the candidate who promised to try whenever possible to benefit all citizens equally.  If you would pick the former, then you are supporting the current system rather than taking a chance on change, and it suggests that while you might “like” democracy in theory, you would prefer to stack the deck in your favor.

  

essays\politiciansnaturalactions