A Vicious Circle

The New York Times ran a great op-ed piece written by Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania and professor of political science, and Dennis F. Thompson, professor of government at Harvard. In the article, called “How to Free Congress’s Mind,” (November 29, 2011) the authors talk about Washington’s uncompromising mindset, its sources, some of its effects, and potential ways to overcome it.

It’s a vicious circle, and it’s driven by the campaign cycle, energized by money and power, and egged on by the media. I hate to say this, but we’re probably part of the problem too.

You know how it goes. People running for office promise to act on voters’ favorite causes. To the extent that voters and firms believe in a candidate, they contribute money to the campaign. During the campaign, opponents try their best to undermine voters’ beliefs that their favorite candidate can deliver on those promises. The news media pounces on the least hint of any candidate not sticking to his or her stated positions, either in the present or in contrast with past statements or behavior; this news, scoop, or scandal draws subscribers and viewers, which ultimately increases advertising revenue. Candidates demonize each other, PACs demonize candidates, the media reports, and it all becomes a kind of reality show that many of us feast on.

The process doesn’t stop when the election is over. Elected officials, it turns out, are still candidates. Maybe they feel that not getting reelected is a form of losing, and they don’t want to be losers; maybe they enjoy the power and media attention.  At any rate, the elected begin a permanent campaign, going back to their home states and districts to continue raising money to fill their war chests for the next election.

Gutmann and Thompson point out that “the environment rewards those who stand tenaciously on their principles and demonize their opponents.”

It might have begun with “read my lips: no new taxes,” but one place this vicious circle has taken us is to John Boehner saying that he rejects the word compromise.  And why wouldn’t he?  For if he comprises, sometime someone is going to call him a flip-flopper, a liar, or worse.

I think this is part of the story, but not the whole story.  For a long time now, we’ve been electing people who know how to raise money, how to get elected, and how to stay in office.  We have not been electing people who know how to govern.  It may be that people who know how to govern aren’t even running for office.

What does it take to govern?  According to the World English dictionary, to govern means “to direct and control the actions, affairs, policies, functions, etc. of a . . . nation”.  In the kind of democracy that our constitution established, governing requires compromise.  Why?  Because the Constitution establishes three branches of government–the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—with equal power and with the ability to interact as checks and balances.  And our democracy as it has evolved with a two-party system further requires compromise.  Without compromise, as we’ve seen, the legislature can accomplish nothing.

Gutmann and Thompson say, “If its [Congress] members won’t relearn the value of compromise, then voters must use the next election to show that they want representatives who care enough about governing to try to compromise.”

However, if the people who are running for office do not know how to compromise or are being trained by the system to be uncompromising, what are voters to do?  If people who know how to compromise (as demonstrated by their past behavior) are being weeded out by the campaign and electoral system, what are our options?

One option might be to return civility to the campaign process, to reject the smear campaigns and subtle or not-so-subtle character assassination that goes on.  Another might be to reintroduce treating others with respect into the system.

A third option might be to take a hint from the Occupy Wall Street movement:  consensus is the way forward.  Perhaps, come spring, we should reestablish Occupy encampments in our most visible cities and invite candidates running for office to Occupy.  They would attend general assemblies, learn the arts of consensus building and how to accomplish life’s tasks in a leaderless, non-hierarchical group.

You know?  An Occupy encampment sounds just the place to be come spring.

But spring is a long time from now, too long to wait.  I want to hear your thoughts.  How do we escape from this Catch-22 right now, in this election cycle?