The Dynamic Center 10.26.07: Consensus Building: A Centrist Platform

Posted by ikabod Crane on 10.26.2007

Politics involves the art of compromise. The political news media and recent campaigns have little use for non-polarizing language. Is political cooperation dead? I hope not…

Narrow Casting

Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of many of England's Orthodox Jews, identifies a negative phenomenon he calls "narrow casting." Sacks explains that those who narrow cast use communication technologies such as the internet or talk radio to address only people who agree with the message being presented. This high tech preaching to the choir polarizes the audience because interaction with those who disagree is purely voluntary.

Narrow casting radicalizes the audience, reduces the sense of a broader community and often does so by demonizing those not listening to a given radio program or viewing a politically charged web page. Benjamin Barber explains that modern technology has made it easier for groups such as neo-Nazi's to target an audience without having to engage in debate over their material. Modern communication devices allow any group to tailor their message only to like-minded people.

It is easy to find examples of this phenomenon in U.S. politics. Talk radio programs such as Michael Savage's and films such as Fahrenheit 911 are more concerned with firing up the base by distorting the positions of those who disagree than with building a national consensus or supermajority. It is then hard to have a political conversation with someone intent on calling the opposition "a lib", "a feminazi", or "a war criminal." Therefore, the public square shrinks and dialogue is reduced to zinging the other side.

You Can't Always Get What You Want

Politics revolves around the art of compromise. Any middle child knows that living in community involves finding ways to balance needs and make things work rather than demanding to get one's way. Our political system has tried to kill the idea of compromise because many now believe those who disagree to be idiots, godless or downright evil. It boils down to this, why compromise with people who are foolish or evil?

As the 2008 presidential election approaches, I think two different considerations could dictate how a citizen votes. One could vote for the candidate that most perfectly reflects the given voter's views. One could also exercise humility and assume that leadership and the ability to inspire confidence and forge a consensus for the country are more important considerations. I mean no disrespect to Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo, but what ability would either have to generate a national consensus?

Bob Dole was a great legislator who was willing to push the legislative system to its logical conclusions. This often involved productive compromises and half-a-loaf solutions. When he ran for president in 1996, many conservatives balked at his record of working with Democrats. This hurt Dole in the primary and drove down enthusiasm for his campaign in the general election. Many conservatives preferred a candidate that mirrored Newt Gingrich's street fighting model for conservatives. If one compares Dole and Gingrich's legislative success rates, one quickly sees that half-a-loaf provides a lot more substance than no loaf at all. Gingrich's narrow approach to government produced a colossal failure in 1996 and he was out of congress by January 1999 due to scandal and failure to deliver on promises.

6 Planks for the Unity Movement

If each of us assumes that we are not the sole repository of governmental wisdom, then the appeal of centrism grows. I have tried to put together a 6 plank platform that reflects the combined wisdom of conservatives, liberals and moderates. Therefore, it is likely either to please no one or to be productive and give voters something around which to rally.

1. Return to Pay as You Go: All non-emergency spending increases or tax cuts need to be paid for by corresponding tax increases or spending cuts. This will force the legislative branch and voters alike to discuss what are and are not national priorities.

2. Set a Goal to Balance the Budget: During recessions this may be difficult to achieve, but if the national debt grows at 3% per year and the economy at 4% per year it is sustainable. In good years, a balanced budget or surplus would allow for shoring up Social Security and Medicare while giving the nation greater control over long term interest rates. Low interest rates are key because affordable capital is important to a capitalist society.

3. Use Market Forces and Tort Reform to Better Control Health Costs: Allowing for prescription drugs from Canada to compete with the same drugs in the U.S. will let the free market push drug costs down. Also, Medicare, Medicaid and the U.S. military can negotiate harder for lower drug prices. Such lower prices are good for almost every sector of the society. An attorney I know always says, "Everyone loves tort reform until they have been wronged." He is correct, but still some moderate form of tort reform is needed so long as it has a safeguard against allowing corporations to literally get off cheap for despicable deeds.

4. Increase Government Investment in People: Under pay as you go rules, this would require cuts in inefficient government in order to pay for government programs such as an expanded Pell Grant program, a more robust Peace Corps and an effective dose of preventative medicine. A leaner government can do things to enhance U.S. competitiveness in a global market.

5. Require Competency for Government Appointments: The days of patronage will never end. The days of appointing horse breeders to run FEMA need to end. Basic competency is a reasonable thing to ask of government officials.

6. Develop an Energy Policy that Addresses Green Concerns and National Security Issues: Finding a way to cut foreign oil consumption through more efficient cars and new forms of fuel is more than sane. Somehow it has not been a political priority since 2001. That needs to change.

7. Other Unity Stances: Reducing the number of abortions by making adoption easier and promoting more responsible sexual practices may be a political mine field to navigate, but it would also diffuse some political tension. I like many pro-life voters could rally around easing adoption costs, and hopefully many pro-choice voters could also be happy with this. Finding a win-win approach to the immigration issue would also ease a major source of national tension. Finally, finding ways to use the political bully pulpit to encourage philanthropy and private sector good deeds is a must. If the next President could get major corporate players to invest in wind farms, experimental schools and mentoring, the public good would grow without tax rates going up.

Non-Zero Sum Games

Robert Wright wrote an entire book about non-zero sum games appropriately entitled Non-Zero: the Logic of Human Destiny. Zero sum interactions benefit the winning party while hurting the losing party. A winner take all prize fight is certainly a zero sum interaction. In the film A Beautiful Mind, John Nash explains to his friend that if they all pursue the most attractive girl in a group of female students they will all lose, but if they coordinate and each pursue one of the less attractive students they each can win. This logic is similar to Bob Dole and Bill Clinton's half-a-loaf approach to legislation in the 1990's. This approach led to budgetary surpluses, the creation of Americorps, health insurance portability, the initial S-CHIP, two free trade deals, a streamlining of government procedures and a general happiness among U.S. voters over policy issues (the tension did move to intern issues if I recall).

2008?

What candidate can best unify a fractured nation? Up front, Hillary Clinton will likely lead to the revival of the 1990's wars over White Water et al, and Ruddy Giuliani, despite many Democratic positions on social issues, will be a continuation of W's no apologies foreign policy. Neither of the front runners appears to be a unifier. John McCain seems to be the Republican with the best opportunity to be a unifying President. Barack Obama's positive message and tax cut proposal may find broad support if he is elected. The nation needs centrism and a conscious effort to repair its consensus. Sadly, elections tend to be zero sum affairs even if good governing involves non-zero sum win-win negotiations.