I believe that the way we practice politics in this country is a major reason why Americans are divided, angry, and frustrated. What I dub as the “hyper-partisan, blame game rubric” has, in recent years, become the predominant way we make policy and govern. The harm goes beyond sewing division and anger, as our elected leaders often end up gridlocked instead of coming together to address the country’s needs. Worse, the policies produced by the rubric are often shortsighted and ineffective.
The Hyper-Partisan Blame Game Rubric is Entrenched and Dysfunctional
Unfortunately, there are many strong, vested interests that perpetuate the blame game rubric. Political parties and their candidates use it to win elections, gain control, and enact their agendas. Blaming and demonizing the other side stokes anger and fear, increasing a party’s base and driving its members to the polls. Simple narratives and sound bites are effective in blaming someone for failing to address a problem, or for terrible outcomes of their actions and policies. It also helps media outlets with conservative or liberal leanings to make money. By repeating and reinforcing the sound bites and narratives directed at blame, demonization, and fear, these media outlets build their audiences and rake in profits. Finally, interest groups embrace the blame-game rubric when doing so helps them secure favorable policies and defeat unwanted policies. They are ready with cash and contributions to advance their political party, elected leader, and candidate allies.
The hyper-partisan blame game rubric might be effective at serving the vested interests of political parties, candidates, media outlets, and special interests, but its downsides are devastating for the country. The rubric ignores the fact that most problems are multi-faceted, and instead assigns blame to a person and their political party. In real life, problems are almost always caused by multiple factors; and identifying these various factors is essential to understanding and solving the problem. Providing the full picture of causation is antithetical to blame-game adherents because it thwarts the messaging objective. In order to fire up the base of the party and win elections, narratives need to be simple and repeatable—not qualified and complex. Consequently, messaging via the blame game rubric misleads voters and limits their understanding of problems, while at the same time stoking anger and frustration.
The rubric also has a devastating impact on the policymaking process. Political parties care more about winning elections and enacting their agendas (or preventing the other side from enacting its agenda) than they do about coming together to solve problems. The opposing party and its members have done bad things, they need to be voted out of office, they can’t be trusted, and they otherwise have nothing to add. The party out of power sees nothing to be gained from being conciliatory or receptive to working with the party in control. They won’t lend a hand or votes to give the party in power a political victory. If individual members seek to cooperate on bipartisan solutions, they will be punished (e.g., removed from committees) or “primaried.” Similarly, if a party gains control of a chamber of Congress, its usual behavior is to refuse to pass or even take up legislation passed by the opposing party in the other chamber.
The dynamics described above all-too-often produce dysfunctional results:
- The parties end up stalemated or gridlocked, and don’t meaningfully act on important problems facing the country (e.g., federal spending, deficits, and the exploding national debt; and, immigration reform)
- Once a party gains power, it seeks to undo actions taken by the previous administration (e.g., repeal of the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare], repeal of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, and repeal of regulations and executive orders.
- When the party in power enacts a portion of its agenda, the solutions tend to serve the interests of the party and its allies, but not the opposing party’s interests. In other words, the problem is solved from the perspective of one party, but not the other. These “political solutions” tend to be short-sighted and ineffective.
- Once a party in control enacts a portion of its agenda, the opposing party attempts to block it via the courts or thwart its implementation.
- Americans are continuously bombarded by partisan narratives that blame and condemn leaders and their parties. Time and again, they see their governments gridlocked on critical problems; and time and again they see their party’s agenda being blocked or reversed by the other party. It’s no wonder that Americans are so deeply divided, angry, frustrated, and mistrustful of government.
How Do We Break Out of the Hyper-Partisan Blame Game Rubric?
I believe it’s going to take a movement—a multifaceted effort—to break away from this damaging and dysfunctional rubric. Because of the strong and vested interests that perpetuate the rubric, change must be led by the American people. Already, there are numerous organizations and individuals mobilizing to take on the anger and division that threatens our country. Nusspectives is my modest effort to be a part of this movement.
The centerpiece of my efforts is a new way of making policy that is meant to be explored and practiced in this blog. Hopefully, by working with this new methodology, we’ll fully reject the hyper-partisan blame game rubric and see that we can come up with better solutions–solutions that also serve to the reduce anger and division that threatens us. This new way of making policy is based on sophisticated and objective research, a search for common ground, proceeding with dialogue that is both respectful and trusting, and recognizing the necessity of compromise.
A New Way of Making Policy: Methodology and Basic Elements
The content of this blog is created using the following methodology and basic elements:
Describe the policy matter.
First, I attempt to describe the policy matter or problem in the context of the current hyper-partisan blame game rubric. I cite examples and provide quotes to support my descriptions.
Present research and analysis.
Second, I dive into research and analysis regarding the policy matter or problem. There are several objectives here:
- I attempt to validate assertions and evidence being provided in the narratives of the blame-game rubric. Is the information true? false? misleading? incomplete?
- I attempt to identify other factors/causes that may be at play in creating or causing the problem under discussion. Most problems are multi-faceted in nature, and understanding the causes is essential to solving the problem.
- I look at the history of the problem over a longer period of time to see what insights can be gained.
- I attempt to identify potential solutions that have recommended or considered.
- I attempt to identify where the American people are regarding the problem and potential solutions. What do polls and opinion surveys tell us?
Address potential solutions.
Third, I discuss how the parties might come together to address the problem.
- I attempt to identify “common interests” that might be shared by Republicans and Democrats. The parties often become gridlocked over specific solutions; thus, it’s often helpful to first identify common interests that the parties might agree to pursue.
- I lay out the elements of a common ground solution for purposes of discussion. Here are three important caveats. First, I’m not trying so much to recommend and defend a specific solution as I am attempting to offer an example of how the parties might come together on a solution. I’m interested in comments and suggestions more than acceptance or rejection. Second, in laying out common ground solutions, I include compromises that may be necessary to reach agreement, whether or not I happen to agree with particular compromises. Finally, I give weight to the views of the American people in constructing my solutions, even if I might disagree with particular majority views. I do this because in resolving policy conflicts, the will of the majority is an important factor to consider.
Remain open.
Finally, in composing my articles I strive to be objective, respectful, and open to disagreement. Americans have legitimate differences in values and beliefs, and we should never expect unanimous accord when it comes to solving our country’s major problems.
In my view Americans are not so divided as we have been led to believe. The hyper-partisan blame game rubric has definitely stoked anger, division, frustration, and mistrust. We need to reject it and start practicing a new methodology that helps us better understand problems and our common interests in solving them. In so doing, we can begin to shed the anger and division and start to realize the level of unity and trust we are actually capable of achieving.
Leave a Reply