The Real Problem in Politics? It’s Us

Hello,

I don’t think there is a bone in my body that will ever trust a politician, and the reason for this is, the way a politician will gamble with our future without thinking twice, is just amazing. The bills that have been passed in the name of ”saving” this great country, are camouflaged with a hidden agenda that is meant to benefit a few minority citizens at the expense of the greater majority. For example, a politician supporting a bill that will benefit his state while putting the rest of the country at a disadvantage. But there is a saying that goes like this, ‘We deserve the leaders we have because we elected them to office.’ So maybe the real solution to all these problems is to elect leaders that are thinking of the greater majority (country), and as Charles Wheelan, Ph,d, points out in the following article, the real problem in politics is us.

Americans don’t like their politicians. A recent poll found that more than nine out of 10 Americans would replace the whole Congress.

What is it that we find so loathsome about political behavior? I’ve worked for a governor. I’ve covered politicians as a journalist. And I’ve run for office. I’ve watched the process from every angle, and here are a handful of political behaviors I’ve observed that are particularly irksome — and very bad for the country.

1. Intellectual dishonesty.

We don’t like it when people shade the truth. Contrary to conventional wisdom, politicians don’t typically get away with boldface lies — because they are so easily exposed (e.g. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”). Instead, there is a more subtle intellectual dishonesty in the political realm that comes in two flavors.

The first involves treating your friends and enemies differently — even when they do the same thing. Consider Sarah Palin and her supposed objection to the use of the word “retarded.” When Rahm Emanuel used this word in an insensitive way, Palin demanded that Obama fire him. But when Rush Limbaugh did essentially the same thing, she gave him a pass because it was “satire.” Come on.

Do you want a Democratic example? How about when assorted women’s groups rallied to Bill Clinton’s support after the Monica Lewinsky incident? Would they have defended George W. Bush’s behavior if he had done the same thing with a White House intern? I suspect not.

Regardless of which party is doing what, we abhor this behavior because

1) we can smell the implicit lying, and

2) it poisons the political environment, making it harder to govern the country effectively.

There is a second kind of intellectual dishonesty in which political actors believe so passionately in the truth of their cause that they are willing to lie for it. Their supposed logic is that a lie in the name of some greater truth is not really a lie. But, of course, it is.

The most recent example of this involved climate change. The scientists who have built a strong case that human behavior is warming the planet felt compelled to buff up their case a bit. The result is that they manipulated the truth, which most of us find offensive regardless of the circumstances. (The irony here is that it will end up fueling skepticism about climate change rather than putting it to rest.)

Do you want a conservative example? Tax cuts. The nice thing about tax cuts is that they promote economic activity. We get to keep more of our own income or investment returns, which in turn promotes harder work and more investment. This is good. But tax cuts typically diminish government revenues, making it harder to pay for popular programs or to close our large and increasingly dangerous budget deficits.

Proponents of tax cuts too often pretend that this tradeoff does not exist, clinging tenaciously to the chimerical idea that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues — which is the economic equivalent of eating your cake and losing weight, too.

2. Me, me, me.

Suppose you are at a neighborhood pot luck dinner. Your spouse realizes that the buffet is running low. So he pushes several elderly neighbors out-of-the-way, cuts in line, and heaps huge quantities of food on his plate. “I wanted to make sure that we got more than our fair share,” he explains to you while chewing. Is he a hero or a jerk?

I think he’s a jerk (as would most of your neighbors). But politicians are routinely rewarded for acting just as aggressively and obnoxiously to defend the narrow interests of their constituents. Here are two recent examples:

Ben Nelson (Democratic senator from Nebraska) was the deciding vote in the Senate back when the Obama administration thought it could pass health care reform. Nelson played coy with his vote — until the health care bill was amended so that Nebraska’s future Medicaid expenses would be paid by the federal government, forever. Paid for by the rest of us, in other words.

Richard Shelby (Republican Senator from Alabama) placed a “hold” on Senate confirmation hearings for more than 70 Obama appointees until two huge government projects are funded in his home state, an Air Force tanker project and an FBI antiterrorism center.

The Obama administration can’t confirm noncontroversial appointments — a prerequisite for governing, whichever party is in power — until Shelby gets pork for his home state. (If it weren’t pork, he wouldn’t have to hold the Senate confirmation process hostage in order to get it.)

This is nothing more than the triumph of narrow interests over the common good.

3. If my political enemy has an idea, then it must be bad.

Suppose you are working for a private firm. One of your colleagues whom you don’t particularly like comes up with a great idea. Do you: A) acknowledge to your boss that it’s a pretty good idea; or B) denounce this good idea viciously so that your annoying colleague won’t get any credit? If your firm is going to succeed in the long run, then the correct answer is A. In politics, the easy answer is B. If our enemies have a good idea, we must reject it, lest they accomplish something and become politically stronger.

Does every Republican truly believe that health care reform is a bad idea? No. Just like every Democrat probably didn’t believe that George W. Bush’s Social Security plans were all bad. But denying victory to the opposing party — even when the nation might benefit — has become the politically rational way to behave.

If we give our opponents some credit or support, then they will gain political strength and be in a position to do things that we genuinely don’t like. So we reject even the ideas that we agree with. Or worse, we hope for failure (at great cost to the nation).

The problem is that we have Congressional elections every two years. If the minority party is constantly seeking to regain power by denying the governing party any victory — even those that make sense — then we’re destined to have dysfunctional governance, forever.

None of this political dysfunction is inevitable. The key is punishing bad behavior, whoever is doing it. If you are disgusted that your neighborhood potlucks have become unruly and unpleasant, then don’t thank your spouse for knocking people out of their wheelchairs in order to bring you three pieces of cake. If you happily gobble up the cake, then you are part of the problem.

The same is true in politics. If your senator brings pork home by doing something that diminishes the nation, then don’t support it. If someone whom you generally like says or does something that is demonstrably stupid, then acknowledge as much. Conversely, even bad people (in your eyes) sometimes have good ideas. Support them.

In short, if you don’t like what you see in American politics, then stop enabling it.