3 ms·
Some great non-hair-on-fire conversation here. Whenever I read and note that most folks are not that far apart on things, I keep wondering why the system is so
by DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Some great non-hair-on-fire conversation here. Whenever I read and note that most folks are not that far apart on things, I keep wondering why the system is so broken. Here's the systemic problem, which has nothing to do with Treasury Bills, tax structures, or political parties.
Phases of political maturity:
1) Apathy. Political parties are like football teams. You pick one and they're your guys. You root for them no matter what. If anything, there might be something wrong about folks who take these things too seriously.
2) Emotion. The other political party is the devil. They are out to destroy America.
3) Enlightenment. The other party is just full of people like me. There are some smart folks, but the problem is that they have all the wrong incentives and conclusions.
4) Understanding. Gee, there are those same bad conclusions and wrong incentives in my favorite party too. Ergo, parties don't matter. There are smart people everywhere. When the system fails, it's a problem of the system, not of the people or parties.
The problem in the U.S. is that the majority of folks are in stage 1 or 2 when we need them to be in 4. So when deep structural conversations come along, they're still either rooting for their team or blaming the other guys, when they should be talking about principles that need to be changed for the entire system to work better, no matter what the actual goals of any party.
There is another problem that helps create deadlock -- an understanding of where the money comes from. I think many folks view the economy as something the government grows so that it can harvest money in the form of taxes. (This is not a Keynesian discussion, simply a discussion about taxes in general.) Other folks view the government as something the economy grows in order to keep it functioning. These are two deeply conflicting world-views. I'm not sure you'll ever reconcile them. Some put trading first and sharing second. Many put sharing first and trading second. These two camps have come to demonize the others, sadly. (Which takes us back to the observation above)
For this problem to be solved, we need to give up on arguing specific issues or philosophical positions and instead talk about fixing structures so that the budget stays balanced long-term no matter who is in power or what their priorities are. This is a meta conversation, the kind the framers had. I am very doubtful there is anyone around today in power that can handle it. Not a happy outlook. All of the people in political power got that way by playing ideological and rhetorical games and by being fiercely loyal to their party. It's the exact opposite qualifications for folks that would have a chance at actually solving anything.
I think we could talk forever and reach general agreement informally on all number of things, but if the system remains broken, it's all going to be for nothing, sadly. Without an honest look at meta systemic issues, a free-for-all discussion around U.S. policy is all so much activity without results.
- jlangenauer 15y agoActually, I think there's a stage before all this: 0) Withdrawal. No political party represents me, and the ones in existence represent other groups. There's nothing I can do to change the system, and it's not even worthwhile voting. I'm going to watch Jersey Shore. In most Western countries, there's a lot of people in stage 0. It's a problem for any putative democracy.
- mchusma 15y agoActually, withdraw may be the last stage (or at least the most logical one). Public choice theory looks at this in depth. Essentially, if your vote doesn't really matter (and statistically it almost never does), then understanding may be too much work with too little payoff. I would say that is why the founders thought limited government was best (although that seems to no longer actually be the case)