Paradigm Shift: Moving Towards the Right Mindset in American Politics

Posted by Greg Allen on 04.03.2007

Let's face it, American politics sucks. New 411 Columnist Greg Allen sets out to explain why and what you can do about it.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics..."
-Carl Sagan

I love that quote. For me, it sums up much of what's wrong with America. This being my first column for 411Mania, I thought I'd begin my job here by talking about what I exactly I think is wrong, and what world view brings me to that conclusion. To be brief, I think politics sucks. I don't think it has to suck, though; I don't think it's natural that you let out a sigh every time you read the news; and you certainly aren't required to to be led by the corrupt and the incompetent. Yet that's the way it is. Politics does suck. The news is almost uniformly depressing, and our leaders – right and left – are far better at boasting, bashing, and embezzling than they have ever been at leading. Despite all that, I feel absolutely certain that things can change. I don't pretend to know whether or not they will change, but I'm sure they can. The simplest solution is that everybody in America needs to treat good government like a truth to be discovered and stop treating it like a game to be won. The games paradigm shows up in every aspect of American politics: it's in the politicians who use arguments this week that directly contradict their vote last year because it's easier to use the polls that their heads. It's in the political pundits who bastardize the arguments of their ideological opponents because it's easier to ignore substantive debate than it is to engage in it. Lastly, it's in the lobbyists who pull strings out from the fabric of democracy because it's easier to take the cash than it is to do what they know is right and true and best for their fellow Americans. Essentially, the games paradigm is what happens when people care more about having their views enacted than they care about enacting them in a democratically honest fashion.

Well, my fellow Americans, I propose a paradigm shift. I say we take the games mindset and grind it under our collective heels. In it's place how about we put a public discourse where people actually care about finding out what people who disagree with them think? Call me crazy, but I think that could actually work.

That's only the first step though. We Americans need to understand that there's no shame in changing your mind. After all, public opinion in this country has on plenty of issues. Only three years ago, 90% of us (including me) thought going into Iraq was a fantastic idea. Now, a sizable majority would call it one hell of a blunder. Despite this, politicians who've changed their minds along with the rest of us are chastised as "flip-floppers." Congress is full of flip-floppers (e.g. Republicans who threatened to filibuster Clinton's Supreme court appointees chastised Democrats for doing the same during the Bush era. Democrats are equally culpable. Ted Kennedy's speech against filibustering Clinton's appointees could have been written by Bill Frist during the Alito hearings). But changing your views when the facts change isn't flip-flopping, it's part of being a rational human being. A politician who doesn't change her mind no matter what the evidence says is no better than the politician whose opinions are entirely dependent on poll of the day.

On that note, start thinking like a politician. The example I'm going to use is convoluted, but it's damn useful for sorting through rhetorical garbage. Basically, assume every politician you hear is fully capable of lying, but understand that politicians lie in a certain way. They lie as a form of camouflage. And what's the purpose of camouflage? To make it's wearer indistinguishable from the background. So politicians tell the lies that justify the things they want for reasons other than their real ones. To use President Bush as an example, if Bush wanted to go into Iraq in order to spread democracy, he would say he went into Iraq to spread democracy. Conversely, if he wanted to go into Iraq to loot Iraqi oil, he would say he went into Iraq to spread democracy. Get it? Bush's words on the issue tell you jack taco about his real intentions. Well, a competent consumer of news has to be able to tell who's being honest and who's disguising his intentions. You obviously can't tell from their words, so instead look at motives: imagine Bush bashes China tomorrow, saying their human rights record is abysmal. A layperson might think this is evidence that Bush gives a damn about human rights in China. An experienced consumer of information would ask what Bush gains by having people think he gives a damn about human rights in China. Maybe it gives him more flexibility in trying to convince the Taiwanese he's still committed to their independence from the communist mainland. Perhaps complaining about human rights in China means that during the next round of trade talks he can throw it away as a concession in order to gain an edge somewhere else in the negotiations. Or maybe he actually does care about human rights violations in China. The point is – that shouldn't at all be the first possibility examined.

In this column, I can't say I'm always going to be right in my predictions or that my interpretation of current events is necessarily going to be the one adopted by historians a hundred years from now; I won't even promise that my columns are always going to be particularly interesting. All I'll promise is that when you read my column, it will be framed in the right paradigm. I won't sidestep relevant counter-arguments and I won't fill these things with a bunch of rhetorical garbage that sounds persuasive but proves nothing. If we're lucky, this could be the start of a true paradigm shift in American politics, so that maybe politics could sound more like science.