Harvard Business School recently did a study on the competitiveness of our political system and what results we are receiving as an electorate from that system. Their focus was an effort to understand why the American economy has been disappointing in recent decades. They hoped the results of this study could help us more efficiently tackle the issues we face in this modern, globally connected age. I think they achieved their goals, and in the process answered some larger questions about who we are as a country.
Their broad conclusion wasn’t that the problem was a result of democrats, republicans, or even the voting public. The problem was the system itself, what it prioritizes, incentivizes, and ultimately produces. It has become a roadblock on the road of progress for a well-intentioned voting public, and believe it or not, genuinely concerned politicians. They are both going the direction the system has urged them to take. As the study put it, “The political system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it is designed to do.”
They assessed that the system is no longer designed to serve the public interest. Rather, it has shifted toward private organizations and individuals. These include the political organizations themselves (the DNC and RNC), lobbyists for companies and industries, wealthy individual donors, and various other forms of private interests that have their own goals placed above those of the countries as a whole. The problem isn’t the two-party system necessarily, but that the current system is skewed towards private influence instead of the public good. This is a result of the way the competition for political office is designed.
The study found that “The parties compete on ideology and unrealistic promises, not on action and results.” Which meant that they adhered to the needs of a vocal minority, dividing the population with wedge issues, funneling their efforts towards the special interests that pay for their continually more expensive election campaigns. This channeling of political capital is by design, and draws passionate voters into wars with an invisible enemy.
This advances the cause of whatever special interest group is funding the politician speaking on their behalf, perpetuating a cycle of donations funding campaigns, which influence the politicians who rely on them, who then pitch the cause, tax break or other incentives in return. The private organizations benefit from the exposure or legislation, they get a great return on their investment (donation) and they continue investing year after year. Both the politician who is winning elections and those funding his elections benefit, they are just doing what comes naturally in the framework of the competitive system they work in. Meanwhile, the general public is all ignored as consequence of the incentives built into the system we rely on to keep our society moving forward.
We rely on the government to come up with solutions for a multitude of issues both now and in the future. We expect a return on our hard-earned tax dollars in the form of an efficiently functioning infrastructure and society. The key to this is action, and action cannot take place if there are ideologically immovable political causes preventing discussion and compromise. What will the future of our roads and bridges be? How about our educational systems, energy infrastructure, military, law enforcement or city planning? These are real and ever-changing problems that we must solve if we hope to continue making progress as a civilization.
In order to accomplish this, we must seek out good solutions on issues that may not serve each and every need, but are broad enough to be accepted by the vast majority of the population. Solutions built on a constitutional foundation, with an acknowledgement that popular opinion will not strip us of basic rights that have made this country unique. Adopting this mindset, these foundational principles, and a bias for action, will be the snowball we being to roll down the mountain.
While good intentions and a desire to act may be the mentality shift we need, how do we actually change the incentive structure? First, let’s identify the problems that influence important outcomes.
The political industry pays attention to either votes or money. These are the fuel of the political machine, and as a result, whoever controls the two will hold an abnormal influence within the system.
The most influential voters are primary voters who decide which candidates make it to the general election, and these voters tend to be the most partisan and ideologically brittle. The politicians must conform to often unrealistic and extreme viewpoints that many primary voters hold in order to get a chance to run for office. This leaves moderate voters in the general election stuck with candidates who are focused on appeasing their base with political showmanship and hold little regard for the chances of producing actual results. The moderates are then stuck choosing the least repulsive candidate instead of a candidate they can believe in.
The most powerful influences where money is concerned are special interest groups and individual wealthy donors. They use their capital to control fights over specific issues that benefit them or their cause. This leaves the average American voter who sits somewhere in the middle politically, with little money to donate, struggling to have their voice heard. The decisions have been made well before the general election, and they just have two unsatisfactory choices left, with no real control over the policy details that influence their lives.
In other words, the nature of competition within the parties encourages them to prioritize the parties and their pet issues instead of the American people as a whole. The parties aren’t competing on who can provide the best solutions to shared problems, they are marketing to increasingly isolated segments of voters to differentiate their party from the other. This focus encourages divisive tactics and discourages showing that there is a lot of overlap of voters concerns on various issues. We focus on the minor issues we have extreme differences on, rather than the major ones with vast room for compromise.
So how do we confront a system that encourages division, doesn’t lend itself to accountability, and produces the “lessor of two evils” mentality we now see in each and every election? The people at Harvard have some ideas that are worth exploring. I will briefly touch on each, refer to the study itself for more complete answers
First, we will need to address the issues that plague the disproportionate influence that some voters have over the election process. This would require restructuring the primaries to a non-partisan top-4 system with a single primary ballot. This would result in primary candidates being selected that represent the broadest spectrum of voters instead of an individual parties most rabid adherents.
Second, address the partisan nature of governing that has resulted in the gridlock. This would mean eliminating partisan control of the House and Senate. The current structure allows the party in power to bend the rules and procedures to their individual party’s benefit, with the public good as a laughable afterthought. By forcing the rules to remain aligned with efficiency and accountability to the public and not the party, we could prevent the unnecessary problems that don’t even concern the issues themselves.
Third, and at the top of most of our minds would be reforming the campaign finance process, and all other forms of money’s influence in politics. Providing funding for centrist political candidates and causes. Enforcing campaign finance rules, and actually funding the government agencies that are in place to do so. Ensuring transparency of political donations, and encouraging philanthropic efforts towards our shared political goals. These, among many other proposed changes would provide some much-needed relief for a system under siege. Often, people just need a call to action and an opportunity to be empowered and start making changes. However, money is generally required to light the spark and fuel the fire.
Fourth, change the system so that candidates from other parties outside of the big two actually have a chance to participate in the process. This means running independent candidates in states where they have a chance to gain influence. Providing politically centrist candidates a source of shared funding and networking. Having an elected independent coalition of senators who can swing key votes that would normally be deadlocked by the political extremes, thus swinging control back to the center, and finally, focusing on bringing power back to the middle in the state level elections.
This isn’t a simple, short term solution. This isn’t the political team sport we have gotten addicted to watching. This isn’t going to be easy, and it will require a sustained collective effort to achieve…but we can achieve it together if we decide that our future is worth fighting for. No matter which political party you identify with, you have seen the damage done to our country as a result of this vicious partisan food fight we have watched play out over our recent history. This isn’t a sustainable political environment, and somebody has to be the dominant country leading mankind into the future. I personally think we have a unique set of values that make me arrogantly want America to continue being the dominant force in the world opposed to the other options. So, if we want to retain our global leadership, now is the time to start taking that role seriously. Now is the time for action, to start walking on that path to a better us.